Why we make bad decisions | Dan Gilbert

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

We all make decisions every day; we want to know

Vi tager alle beslutninger hver dag; vi vil gerne vide

what the right thing is to do -- in domains from the financial

hvad der er det rigtige at gøre -- på områder fra det finansielle

to the gastronomic to the professional to the romantic.

til det gastronomiske, til det professionelle, til det romantiske.

And surely, if somebody could really tell us how to do

Og bestemt, hvis nogen virkelig kunne fortælle os hvordan vi gør

exactly the right thing at all possible times,

præcis det rigtige, hver gang det er muligt,

that would be a tremendous gift.

ville det være en mægtig gave.

It turns out that, in fact, the world was given this gift in 1738

Det viser sig, faktisk, at verden fik denne gave i 1738

by a Dutch polymath named Daniel Bernoulli.

af en hollandsk polyhistor der hed Daniel Bernoulli.

And what I want to talk to you about today is what that gift is,

Og hvad jeg vil tale til jer om i dag, er hvad den gave er

and I also want to explain to you why it is

og jeg vil også forklare jer, hvorfor det

that it hasn't made a damn bit of difference.

ikke har gjort nogen forbandet forskel.

Now, this is Bernoulli's gift. This is a direct quote.

Nuvel, dette er Bernoullis gave. Dette er et direkte citat.

And if it looks like Greek to you, it's because, well, it's Greek.

Og hvis det ligner græsk for jer, er det fordi, jamen, det er græsk.

But the simple English translation -- much less precise,

Men den simple engelske oversættelse -- meget mindre præcis,

but it captures the gist of what Bernoulli had to say -- was this:

men det fanger essensen af det Bernoulli havde at sige -- var dette:

The expected value of any of our actions --

Den forventede værdi af enhver af vores handlinger --

that is, the goodness that we can count on getting --

det vil sige, godheden som vi kan regne med at få --

is the product of two simple things:

er produktet af to simple ting:

the odds that this action will allow us to gain something,

oddsene for at denne handling giver os lov til at vinde noget,

and the value of that gain to us.

og værdien af denne gevinst for os.

In a sense, what Bernoulli was saying is,

På en måde prøvede Bernoulli at sige, at

if we can estimate and multiply these two things,

hvis vi kan vurdere og gange disse to ting,

we will always know precisely how we should behave.

vil vi altid vide præcis hvordan vi skal handle.

Now, this simple equation, even for those of you

Nuvel, denne simple ligning, selv for de af jer

who don't like equations, is something that you're quite used to.

der ikke kan lide ligninger, er noget som I er ret vant til.

Here's an example: if I were to tell you, let's play

Her er et eksempel: Hvis jeg fortalte dig, lad os spille

a little coin toss game, and I'm going to flip a coin,

et lille spil møntkast, og jeg vil slå plat og krone med en mønt,

and if it comes up heads, I'm going to pay you 10 dollars,

og hvis det bliver krone, vil jeg give dig 10 dollars,

but you have to pay four dollars for the privilege of playing with me,

men du skal betale 4 dollars for privilegiet af at spille med mig,

most of you would say, sure, I'll take that bet. Because you know

de fleste af jer ville sige, "ok, det væddemål er jeg med på". Fordi I ved

that the odds of you winning are one half, the gain if you do is 10 dollars,

at oddsene for at I vinder er halvdelen, og gevinsten er 10 dollars,

that multiplies to five, and that's more

det ganges til fem, og det er mere

than I'm charging you to play. So, the answer is, yes.

end jeg afkræver jer for at spille. Så, svaret er ja.

This is what statisticians technically call a damn fine bet.

Dette er hvad statistikkerne teknisk set kalder et forbandet godt væddemål.

Now, the idea is simple when we're applying it to coin tosses,

Nuvel, ideen er simpel når vi bruger den på møntkast,

but in fact, it's not very simple in everyday life.

men faktisk er den ikke særlig simpel i hverdagen.

People are horrible at estimating both of these things,

Mennesker er forfærdelig dårlige til at vurdere begge disse ting,

and that's what I want to talk to you about today.

og det er hvad jeg vil tale til Jer om i dag.

There are two kinds of errors people make when trying to decide

Der er to slags fejl mennesker laver, når de prøver at beslutte

what the right thing is to do, and those are

hvad der er det rigtige at gøre, og det er

errors in estimating the odds that they're going to succeed,

fejl i at vurdere oddsene for at de vil lykkedes

and errors in estimating the value of their own success.

og fejl i at vurdere værdien af deres egne succeser.

Now, let me talk about the first one first.

Men, lad mig starte med at tale om den første.

Calculating odds would seem to be something rather easy:

At beregne odds, ser ud til at være noget ret nemt:

there are six sides to a die, two sides to a coin, 52 cards in a deck.

Der er seks sider på en terning, to sider på en mønt, 52 kort i et spil kort.

You all know what the likelihood is of pulling the ace of spades

I ved alle hvad sandsynligheden er for at trække spar es

or of flipping a heads.

eller at kaste krone.

But as it turns out, this is not a very easy idea to apply

Men det viser sig, at dette ikke er en særlig nem ide at anvende

in everyday life. That's why Americans spend more --

i hverdagen. Det er derfor amerikanere spenderer mere --

I should say, lose more -- gambling

-- jeg burde sige, taber mere -- på hasard

than on all other forms of entertainment combined.

end alle de andre former for underholdning tilsammen.

The reason is, this isn't how people do odds.

Grunden er, at det ikke er hvordan folk beregner odds.

The way people figure odds

Måden hvor folk regner odds på

requires that we first talk a bit about pigs.

kræver at vi først snakker lidt om grise.

Now, the question I'm going to put to you is whether you think

Nuvel, spørgsmålet jeg vil stille jer, er om I tror

there are more dogs or pigs on leashes

der bliver observeret flere hunde eller grise

observed in any particular day in Oxford.

i snor, en hvilken som helst dag i Oxford.

And of course, you all know that the answer is dogs.

Og selvfølgelig, ved I alle sammen at svaret er hunde.

And the way that you know that the answer is dogs is

Og måden hvorpå I ved at svaret er hunde er,

you quickly reviewed in memory the times

at I hurtigt kigger i hukommelsen efter de gange

you've seen dogs and pigs on leashes.

I har set hunde og grise i snor.

It was very easy to remember seeing dogs,

Det var meget nemt at huske, at se hunde

not so easy to remember pigs. And each one of you assumed

men ikke så nemt at huske grise. Og hver af jer antog,

that if dogs on leashes came more quickly to your mind,

at hvis hunde i snore kom hurtigere frem i hukommelsen,

then dogs on leashes are more probable.

så er hunde i snor mere sandsynligt.

That's not a bad rule of thumb, except when it is.

Det er ikke nogen dårlig tommelfingerregel, bortset fra når det er det.

So, for example, here's a word puzzle.

Så, for eksempel, her er en ordgåde.

Are there more four-letter English words

Er der flest engelske fire bogstavs ord

with R in the third place or R in the first place?

med R på tredje pladsen eller R på første pladsen?

Well, you check memory very briefly, make a quick scan,

Jamen, man kigger kort i hukommelsen, laver en hurtig scanning,

and it's awfully easy to say to yourself, Ring, Rang, Rung,

og det er forfærdelig nemt at sige til sig selv, Ring, Rang, Rung,

and very hard to say to yourself, Pare, Park: they come more slowly.

og det er sværere at sige til sig selv, Pare, Park: de kommer langsommere.

But in fact, there are many more words in the English language

Men faktisk, så er der mange flere ord i det engelske sprog,

with R in the third than the first place.

med R på tredje pladsen end på første pladsen.

The reason words with R in the third place come slowly to your mind

Grunden til at ord med R på tredjepladsen kommer langsommere frem i hukommelsen,

isn't because they're improbable, unlikely or infrequent.

er ikke fordi de er usandsynlige eller sjældne.

It's because the mind recalls words by their first letter.

Det er fordi hjernen husker ord ved deres første bogstav.

You kind of shout out the sound, S -- and the word comes.

Man kan råbe lyden, S -- og så kommer ordet.

It's like the dictionary;

Det er ligesom ordbogen;

it's hard to look things up by the third letter.

Det er svært at finde ting efter det tredje bogstav.

So, this is an example of how this idea that

Så, dette er et eksempel på at ideen om, at

the quickness with which things come to mind

hastigheden som tingene kommer frem i hjernen på,

can give you a sense of their probability --

kan give en ideen om sandsynligheden --

how this idea could lead you astray. It's not just puzzles, though.

hvordan denne ide kan lede en på afveje. Det er dog ikke kun puslespil.

For example, when Americans are asked to estimate the odds

For eksempel, når amerikanere bliver bedt om at vurdere oddsene

that they will die in a variety of interesting ways --

for at de vil dø på forskellige interessante måder --

these are estimates of number of deaths per year

dette er vurderinger af antallet af dødsfald per år

per 200 million U.S. citizens.

per 200 millioner amerikanske borgere.

And these are just ordinary people like yourselves who are asked

Og dette er bare almindelige mennesker ligesom jer, der bliver bedt om

to guess how many people die from tornado, fireworks, asthma, drowning, etc.

at gætte hvor mange folk der dør af tornadoer, fyrværkeri, astma, drukning, osv.

Compare these to the actual numbers.

Sammenlign dette med de faktiske tal.

Now, you see a very interesting pattern here, which is first of all,

Det man ser er et meget interessant mønster her, hvilket for det første er,

two things are vastly over-estimated, namely tornadoes and fireworks.

at to ting bliver enormt overvurderet, nemlig tornadoer og fyrværkeri.

Two things are vastly underestimated:

To ting bliver enormt undervurderet:

dying by drowning and dying by asthma. Why?

Død ved drukning og død af astma. Hvorfor?

When was the last time that you picked up a newspaper

Hvornår var sidste gang I kiggede i en avis

and the headline was, "Boy dies of Asthma?"

og overskriften var, "Dreng død af astma?"

It's not interesting because it's so common.

Det er ikke interessant, fordi det er så almindeligt.

It's very easy for all of us to bring to mind instances

Det er meget nemt for os at huske de tilfælde

of news stories or newsreels where we've seen

hvor vi har set nyheder der viser

tornadoes devastating cities, or some poor schmuck

tornadoer der ødelægger byer, eller en eller anden tosse

who's blown his hands off with a firework on the Fourth of July.

der har sprængt sine hænder af med fyrværkeri til Fourth of July.

Drownings and asthma deaths don't get much coverage.

Død ved drukning og astma får ikke meget dækning.

They don't come quickly to mind, and as a result,

De kommer ikke hurtig frem i hukommelsen, og resultatet er

we vastly underestimate them.

at vi undervurderer dem utrolig meget.

Indeed, this is kind of like the Sesame Street game

Dette er ganske vist denne slags gemmelege

of "Which thing doesn't belong?" And you're right to say

som "Hvilken ting hører ikke hjemme?", og I har ret i at sige

it's the swimming pool that doesn't belong, because the swimming pool

at det er swimmingpoolen der ikke hører hjemme, fordi swimmingpoolen

is the only thing on this slide that's actually very dangerous.

er den eneste ting på den slide, der faktisk er rigtig farlig.

The way that more of you are likely to die than the combination

Måden hvorpå flere af jer mest sandsynlig vil dø på, i stedet for kombinationen

of all three of the others that you see on the slide.

af alle tre, kan I se på sliden.

The lottery is an excellent example, of course -- an excellent test-case

Lotto er et rigtig godt eksempel, selvfølgelig -- en glimrende testcase

of people's ability to compute probabilities.

af menneskers evne til at beregne sandsynligheder.

And economists -- forgive me, for those of you who play the lottery --

Og økonomerne -- tilgiv mig, jer der spiller i lotteriet --

but economists, at least among themselves, refer to the lottery

men økonomer, i hvert fald blandt dem selv, refererer til lotteriet

as a stupidity tax, because the odds of getting any payoff

som en dumhedsskat, fordi oddsene for at få en fortjeneste

by investing your money in a lottery ticket

ved at investere ens penge i en lottokupon

are approximately equivalent to flushing the money

er omtrent det samme som at skylle pengene

directly down the toilet -- which, by the way,

direkte ud i toilettet -- som, forresten,

doesn't require that you actually go to the store and buy anything.

ikke kræver at man ligefrem behøver at gå ind i butikken og købe noget.

Why in the world would anybody ever play the lottery?

Hvorfor i alverden ville nogen have lyst til at spille i lotteriet?

Well, there are many answers, but one answer surely is,

Jamen, der er mange svar, men et svar er helt sikkert,

we see a lot of winners. Right? When this couple wins the lottery,

vi ser en masse vindere. Ikke? Da dette par vinder lotteriet,

or Ed McMahon shows up at your door with this giant check --

eller Ed McMahon står ved jeres dør for at aflevere denne kæmpe check --

how the hell do you cash things that size, I don't know.

hvordan dælen man indløser en check på den størrelse ved jeg ikke.

We see this on TV; we read about it in the paper.

Vi ser dette i fjernsynet; vi læser om det i avisen.

When was the last time that you saw extensive interviews

Hvornår så I sidste gang et dybdegående interview

with everybody who lost?

med alle dem der tabte?

Indeed, if we required that television stations run

Og rigtignok, hvis vi krævede at tv-stationerne viser

a 30-second interview with each loser

et 30 sekunders interview med hver taber

every time they interview a winner, the 100 million losers

hver gang de interviewer en vinder, ville de 100 million tabere

in the last lottery would require nine-and-a-half years

i det sidste lotteri kræve ni og et halvt år

of your undivided attention just to watch them say,

af jeres udelte opmærksomhed, bare for at se dem sige

"Me? I lost." "Me? I lost."

"Mig, jeg tabte." "Mig, jeg tabte."

Now, if you watch nine-and-a-half years of television --

Nuvel, hvis man ser ni og et halvt års tv --

no sleep, no potty breaks -- and you saw loss after loss after loss,

ingen søvn, ingen toilet pauser -- og man ser taber, efter taber, efter taber,

and then at the end there's 30 seconds of, "and I won,"

og til slut et 30 sekunders klip med, "og jeg vandt",

the likelihood that you would play the lottery is very small.

er sandsynligheden for at man ville spille i lotteriet meget lille.

Look, I can prove this to you: here's a little lottery.

Se, jeg kan bevise det for jer: Her er et lille lotteri.

There's 10 tickets in this lottery.

Der er 10 kuponer i dette lotteri.

Nine of them have been sold to these individuals.

Ni af dem er solgt til disse individer.

It costs you a dollar to buy the ticket and, if you win,

Det koster en dollar at købe en kupon, og hvis man vinder,

you get 20 bucks. Is this a good bet?

får man 20 dollars. Er dette et godt væddemål?

Well, Bernoulli tells us it is.

Jamen, det fortæller Bernoulli os.

The expected value of this lottery is two dollars;

Den forventede værdi af dette lotteri er to dollars;

this is a lottery in which you should invest your money.

dette er et lotteri som man burde investere sine penge i.

And most people say, "OK, I'll play."

Og de fleste mennesker siger, "Ok, jeg er med.".

Now, a slightly different version of this lottery:

Nuvel, en lille anderledes version af dette lotteri:

imagine that the nine tickets are all owned

forestil jer at de ni kuponer alle ejes af

by one fat guy named Leroy.

en fed fyr der hedder Leroy.

Leroy has nine tickets; there's one left.

Leroy har ni kuponer; der er en tilbage.

Do you want it? Most people won't play this lottery.

Vil man have den? De fleste mennesker vil ikke spille i dette lotteri.

Now, you can see the odds of winning haven't changed,

I kan se at oddsene for at vinde er uændrede,

but it's now fantastically easy to imagine who's going to win.

men nu er det utrolig nemt at se hvem der kommer til at vinde.

It's easy to see Leroy getting the check, right?

Det er nemt at se Leroy få den check, ikke?

You can't say to yourself, "I'm as likely to win as anybody,"

I kan ikke sige til jer selv, "Der er lige så stor sandsynlighed for at jeg vinder, som alle andre

because you're not as likely to win as Leroy.

fordi der er ikke lige så stor sandsynlighed for at I vinder, som Leroy.

The fact that all those tickets are owned by one guy

Faktum er, at alle disse kuponer ejes af en fyr

changes your decision to play,

og det ændrer ens beslutning om at spille

even though it does nothing whatsoever to the odds.

selvom det ikke ændrer det mindste ved oddsene.

Now, estimating odds, as difficult as it may seem, is a piece of cake

Nuvel, at beregne odds, uanset hvor svært det ser ud, er utrolig nemt

compared to trying to estimate value:

sammenlignet med at prøve at beregne værdi:

trying to say what something is worth, how much we'll enjoy it,

At prøve at vurdere hvad noget er værd, hvor meget man vil nyde det,

how much pleasure it will give us.

hvor meget glæde det vil give os.

I want to talk now about errors in value.

Jeg vil nu tale om fejl i værdi.

How much is this Big Mac worth? Is it worth 25 dollars?

Hvor meget er en Big Mac værd? Er den 25 dollars værd?

Most of you have the intuition that it's not --

De fleste af jer syntes intuitivt, at den ikke er det værd --

you wouldn't pay that for it.

I vil ikke betale det for den.

But in fact, to decide whether a Big Mac is worth 25 dollars requires

Men faktisk, at beslutte om en Big Mac er 25 dollars værd, kræver

that you ask one, and only one question, which is:

at man spørger sig selv om en ting, hvilket er:

What else can I do with 25 dollars?

Hvad kan jeg ellers gøre med 25 dollars?

If you've ever gotten on one of those long-haul flights to Australia

Hvis I nogensinde har været på et af de langtursflyvninger til Australien

and realized that they're not going to serve you any food,

og opdaget at de ikke kommer til at servere noget mad,

but somebody in the row in front of you has just opened

men nogen i rækken foran en lige har åbnet

the McDonald's bag, and the smell of golden arches

en McDonalds pose, og duften af den gyldne måge

is wafting over the seat, you think,

flyder hen over sædet, man tænker,

I can't do anything else with this 25 dollars for 16 hours.

jeg kan ikke bruge disse 25 dollars på andet de næste 16 timer.

I can't even set it on fire -- they took my cigarette lighter!

Jeg kan ikke engang sætte ild til dem -- de tog min lighter!

Suddenly, 25 dollars for a Big Mac might be a good deal.

Pludselig er 25 dollars for en Big Mac måske en god handel.

On the other hand, if you're visiting an underdeveloped country,

På den anden side, hvis man besøger et uland,

and 25 dollars buys you a gourmet meal, it's exorbitant for a Big Mac.

og man for 25 dollars får et gourmet måltid, er det mange penge for en Big Mac.

Why were you all sure that the answer to the question was no,

Hvorfor var I alle sikre på at svaret var nej,

before I'd even told you anything about the context?

før jeg havde fortalt noget om konteksten?

Because most of you compared the price of this Big Mac

Fordi de fleste af jer sammenligner prisen af en Big Mac

to the price you're used to paying. Rather than asking,

med prisen I plejer at betale. I stedet for at spørge,

"What else can I do with my money," comparing this investment

"Hvad kan jeg ellers gøre med mine penge," og sammenligne denne investering

to other possible investments, you compared to the past.

med tidligere mulige investeringer, I sammenlignede med fortiden.

And this is a systematic error people make.

Og dette er en systematisk fejl folk begår.

What you knew is, you paid three dollars in the past; 25 is outrageous.

Hvad man ved er, man betalte 3 dollars i fortiden; 25 er skandaløst.

This is an error, and I can prove it to you by showing

Dette er en fejl og jeg kan bevise det for jer, ved at vise jer

the kinds of irrationalities to which it leads.

den slags irrationelle handlinger det leder til.

For example, this is, of course,

For eksempel, dette er, selvfølgelig,

one of the most delicious tricks in marketing,

et af de lækreste marketing tricks,

is to say something used to be higher,

at sige at noget plejede at være dyrere,

and suddenly it seems like a very good deal.

og pludselig ser det ud til at være en rigtig god handel.

When people are asked about these two different jobs:

Når folk bliver spurgt om disse to jobs:

a job where you make 60K, then 50K, then 40K,

et job hvor man tjener 60.000, så 50.000, så 40.000,

a job where you're getting a salary cut each year,

et job hvor man får en lønnedgang hvert år,

and one in which you're getting a salary increase,

og et hvor man får en lønstigning,

people like the second job better than the first, despite the fact

kan folk bedst lide det andet job, frem for det første, på trods af

they're all told they make much less money. Why?

at de får at vide at de tjener en del færre penge. Hvorfor?

Because they had the sense that declining wages are worse

Fordi de havde følelsen af at lønnedgang er værre,

than rising wages, even when the total amount of wages is higher

end lønstigning, selv når den totale mængde af lønnen er højere

in the declining period. Here's another nice example.

i den nedgående periode. Her er endnu et sjovt eksempel.

Here's a $2,000 Hawaiian vacation package; it's now on sale for 1,600.

Her er en feriepakke til Hawaii til 2.000 dollars; den er nu på tilbud til 1.600.

Assuming you wanted to go to Hawaii, would you buy this package?

Hvis vi går ud fra at man gerne ville til Hawaii, ville I købe denne pakke?

Most people say they would. Here's a slightly different story:

De fleste folk siger de ville. Her er en lidt anderledes historie:

$2,000 Hawaiian vacation package is now on sale for 700 dollars,

Pakken til Hawaii til 2.000 dollars er nu på tilbud til 700 dollars,

so you decide to mull it over for a week.

så man tænker over det i en uge.

By the time you get to the ticket agency, the best fares are gone --

Da man kommer til rejsebureauet, er de bedste rejser taget --

the package now costs 1,500. Would you buy it? Most people say, no.

pakken koster nu 1.500. Ville I købe den? De fleste siger nej.

Why? Because it used to cost 700, and there's no way I'm paying 1,500

Hvorfor? Fordi den plejede at koste 700, og jeg betaler under ingen omstændigheder 1.500

for something that was 700 last week.

for noget der kostede 700 i sidste uge.

This tendency to compare to the past

Denne tendens til at sammenligne med fortiden

is causing people to pass up the better deal. In other words,

får folk til at afslå den bedste handel. Med andre ord,

a good deal that used to be a great deal is not nearly as good

en god handel, der plejede at være en suveræn handel, er ikke nær så god

as an awful deal that was once a horrible deal.

som en dårlig handel, der plejede at være en elendig handel.

Here's another example of how comparing to the past

Her er et andet eksempel af hvordan det at sammenligne med fortiden

can befuddle our decisions.

kan forvirre vores beslutninger.

Imagine that you're going to the theater.

Forestil jer, at man tager i teateret.

You're on your way to the theater.

Man er på vej til teatret.

In your wallet you have a ticket, for which you paid 20 dollars.

I ens pung har man en billet, som man har betalt 20 dollars for.

You also have a 20-dollar bill.

Man har også en 20 dollar seddel.

When you arrive at the theater,

Da man ankommer til teatret,

you discover that somewhere along the way you've lost the ticket.

finder man ud af, at man har tabt billetten på vejen.

Would you spend your remaining money on replacing it?

Ville man bruge de sidste penge på at købe en ny?

Most people answer, no.

De fleste mennesker siger nej.

Now, let's just change one thing in this scenario.

Nuvel, lad os ændre en ting i dette eksempel.

You're on your way to the theater,

Man er på vej til teatret,

and in your wallet you have two 20-dollar bills.

og i pungen har man to 20 dollar sedler.

When you arrive you discover you've lost one of them.

Da man ankommer finder man ud af, at man har mistet den ene.

Would you spend your remaining 20 dollars on a ticket?

Ville I bruge de sidste 20 dollars på at købe en billet?

Well, of course, I went to the theater to see the play.

Jamen, selvfølgelig, jeg tog i teatret for at se stykket.

What does the loss of 20 dollars along the way have to do?

Hvad har tabet af 20 dollars på vejen at gøre med det?

Now, just in case you're not getting it,

Ok, hvis i tilfælde af at I ikke forstod det,

here's a schematic of what happened, OK?

så er der et diagram af hvad der skete her, ok?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Along the way, you lost something.

På vejen tabte man noget.

In both cases, it was a piece of paper.

I begge tilfælde, var det et stykke papir.

In one case, it had a U.S. president on it; in the other case it didn't.

I det ene tilfælde, var der en amerikansk præsident på det; i det andet var der ikke.

What the hell difference should it make?

Hvilken forbandet forskel gør det?

The difference is that when you lost the ticket you say to yourself,

Forskellen er, at da man tabte billetten siger man til sig selv,

I'm not paying twice for the same thing.

jeg betaler ikke to gange for den samme ting.

You compare the cost of the play now -- 40 dollars --

Man sammenligner prisen for stykket nu -- 40 dollars --

to the cost that it used to have -- 20 dollars -- and you say it's a bad deal.

med prisen den plejede at have -- 20 dollars -- og man siger det er en dårlig handel.

Comparing with the past causes many of the problems

At sammenligne med fortiden skaber mange problemer

that behavioral economists and psychologists identify

som adfærdsøkonomer og psykologer identificerer

in people's attempts to assign value.

i menneskers forsøg på at angive værdi.

But even when we compare with the possible, instead of the past,

Men selv når vi sammenligner med mulighederne i stedet for fortiden,

we still make certain kinds of mistakes.

begår vi stadig bestemte fejl.

And I'm going to show you one or two of them.

Og jeg vil vise jer en eller to af dem.

One of the things we know about comparison:

En af tingene vi ved om sammenligning:

that when we compare one thing to the other, it changes its value.

at når vi sammenligner en ting med en anden, ændrer det værdi.

So in 1992, this fellow, George Bush, for those of us who were

Så i 1992, denne gut, George Bush, for de af os der var

kind of on the liberal side of the political spectrum,

på den lidt liberale side af det politiske spektrum,

didn't seem like such a great guy.

virkede han ikke som en særlig god fyr.

Suddenly, we're almost longing for him to return.

Pludselig, sukker vi næsten efter at få ham tilbage.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

The comparison changes how we evaluate him.

Sammenligningen ændrer hvordan vi evaluerer ham.

Now, retailers knew this long before anybody else did, of course,

Nuvel, sælgere vidste dette før nogen andre selvfølgelig,

and they use this wisdom to help you --

og de bruger denne viden til at hjælpe dig --

spare you the undue burden of money.

at spare dig for byrden af penge.

And so a retailer, if you were to go into a wine shop

Så en sælger, hvis man går ind i en vinbutik

and you had to buy a bottle of wine,

og man skulle købe en flaske vin,

and you see them here for eight, 27 and 33 dollars, what would you do?

og man ser dem der for otte, 27 og 33 dollar, hvad gør man så?

Most people don't want the most expensive,

De fleste mennesker vil ikke have det dyreste,

they don't want the least expensive.

de vil ikke have det billigste.

So, they will opt for the item in the middle.

Så de vælger den ting midt i mellem.

If you're a smart retailer, then, you will put a very expensive item

Hvis man er en klog sælger, så vil man sætte en rigtig dyr ting,

that nobody will ever buy on the shelf,

som ingen nogensinde vil købe, på hylden,

because suddenly the $33 wine doesn't look as expensive in comparison.

fordi pludselig ser vinen til 33 dollar pludselig ikke dyr ud i sammenligning.

So I'm telling you something you already knew:

Så jeg fortæller jer noget I allerede ved:

namely, that comparison changes the value of things.

nemlig, at sammenligning ændrer værdien af ting.

Here's why that's a problem:

Her er hvorfor det er et problem:

the problem is that when you get that $33 bottle of wine home,

problemet er, at når man tager den vin til 33 dollars med hjem,

it won't matter what it used to be sitting on the shelf next to.

betyder det ikke noget hvad der stod på hylden ved siden af.

The comparisons we make when we are appraising value,

Sammenligningen vi laver når vi fastsætter værdien,

where we're trying to estimate how much we'll like things,

hvor vi prøver at evaluere hvor meget vi kan lide ting,

are not the same comparisons we'll be making when we consume them.

er ikke de samme sammenligninger vi laver, når vi nyder dem.

This problem of shifting comparisons can bedevil

Dette problem af at ændre sammenligninger kan ødelægge

our attempts to make rational decisions.

vores forsøg på at lave rationelle beslutninger.

Let me just give you an example.

Lad mig give jer et eksempel.

I have to show you something from my own lab, so let me sneak this in.

Jeg vil vise jer noget fra mit eget laboratorium, så lad mig snige dette ind.

These are subjects coming to an experiment to be asked

Disse er forsøgspersoner der kommer til et eksperiment, for at blive spurgt

the simplest of all questions:

det simpleste spørgsmål:

How much will you enjoy eating potato chips one minute from now?

Hvor meget vil du nyde at spise chips om et minut?

They're sitting in a room with potato chips in front of them.

De sidder i et rum med chips foran sig.

For some of the subjects, sitting in the far corner of a room

For nogle af forsøgspersonerne, står der i det modsatte hjørne af værelset

is a box of Godiva chocolates, and for others is a can of Spam.

en æske med Godiva chokolade, og for andre er det en dåseskinke.

In fact, these items that are sitting in the room change

Faktisk, ændrer disse ting der står i værelset

how much the subjects think they're going to enjoy the potato chips.

hvor meget forsøgspersonen regner med at nyde at spise chips.

Namely, those who are looking at Spam

Nemlig, dem der kigger på dåseskinken

think potato chips are going to be quite tasty;

tror at chipsene bliver ret lækre;

those who are looking at Godiva chocolate

dem der kigger på Godiva chokolade

think they won't be nearly so tasty.

tror ikke det bliver nær så lækkert.

Of course, what happens when they eat the potato chips?

Selvfølgelig, hvad sker der så når de spiser chipsene?

Well, look, you didn't need a psychologist to tell you that

Jamen, hør, man behøver ikke en psykolog for at fortælle en, at

when you have a mouthful of greasy, salty, crispy, delicious snacks,

når man har munden fuld af fede, saltede, sprøde, lækre snacks,

what's sitting in the corner of the room

så betyder det der står i hjørnet af værelset

makes not a damn bit of difference to your gustatory experience.

ikke det mindste for ens smagsoplevelse.

Nonetheless, their predictions are perverted by a comparison

Ikke desto mindre, så bliver deres forudsigelser perverteret af sammenligningen

that then does not carry through and change their experience.

der ikke følger med over, og ændrer deres oplevelse.

You've all experienced this yourself, even if you've never come

I har alle oplevet dette selv, selv om I aldrig har været

into our lab to eat potato chips. So here's a question:

i vores laboratorium for at spise chips. Så her er spørgsmålet:

You want to buy a car stereo.

Du vil købe en bilstereo.

The dealer near your house sells this particular stereo for 200 dollars,

Forhandleren i nærheden af dit hus, sælger dette anlæg for 200 dollars,

but if you drive across town, you can get it for 100 bucks.

men hvis man kører gennem byen, kan man købe det for 100 dollars.

So would you drive to get 50 percent off, saving 100 dollars?

Vil du køre for at spare 50 procent, og spare 100 dollars?

Most people say they would.

De fleste mennesker siger de ville.

They can't imagine buying it for twice the price

De kan ikke forestille sig at købe det til den dobbelte pris,

when, with one trip across town, they can get it for half off.

når man med en køretur gennem byen kan få det til halv pris.

Now, let's imagine instead you wanted to buy a car that had a stereo,

Nuvel, lad os i stedet forestille og, at man vil købe en bil med stereoanlæg i,

and the dealer near your house had it for 31,000.

og forhandleren i nærheden af huset solgte den til 31.000 dollars.

But if you drove across town, you could get it for 30,900.

Men hvis man kørte gennem byen, kunne man få den til 30.900.

Would you drive to get it? At this point, 0.003 savings -- the 100 dollars.

Ville man køre for at få den? Her er det 0.003 sparet -- de hundrede dollars.

Most people say, no, I'm going to schlep across town

De fleste mennesker ville sige, nej, skal jeg slæbe mig selv gennem byen

to save 100 bucks on the purchase of a car?

for at spare 100 dask på et bilkøb?

This kind of thinking drives economists crazy, and it should.

Denne slags tænkning driver økonomer til vanvid, og det bør det.

Because this 100 dollars that you save -- hello! --

Fordi disse 100 dollars man sparer -- hallo! --

doesn't know where it came from.

ved ikke hvor de kom fra.

It doesn't know what you saved it on.

De ved ikke hvor man har sparet dem.

When you go to buy groceries with it, it doesn't go,

Når man tager ud og køber ind for dem, siger de ikke,

I'm the money saved on the car stereo, or,

Jeg er de penge du sparede på anlægget, eller,

I'm the dumb money saved on the car. It's money.

Jeg er de dumme penge du sparede på bilen. Det er penge.

And if a drive across town is worth 100 bucks, it's worth 100 bucks

Hvis en køretur gennem byen er 100 dollars værd, er det 100 dollars værd,

no matter what you're saving it on. People don't think that way.

uanset hvordan man sparer dem. Folk tænker ikke sådan.

That's why they don't know whether their mutual fund manager

Det er derfor de ikke ved om deres investeringsforening

is taking 0.1 percent or 0.15 percent of their investment,

tager 0.1 procent eller 0.15 procent af deres investering,

but they clip coupons to save one dollar off of toothpaste.

men de klipper kuponer for at spare en dollar på tandpasta.

Now, you can see, this is the problem of shifting comparisons,

Ok, I kan se at dette er problemet ved skiftende sammenligninger,

because what you're doing is, you're comparing the 100 bucks

fordi det man gør er, at man sammenligner de 100 dollars

to the purchase that you're making,

med det køb man foretager sig,

but when you go to spend that money you won't be making that comparison.

men hvis man går ud og bruger de penge, laver man ikke sammenligningen.

You've all had this experience.

I har alle haft denne oplevelse.

If you're an American, for example, you've probably traveled in France.

Hvis du er amerikaner, for eksempel, har du sikkert rejst i Frankrig.

And at some point you may have met a couple

Og på et tidspunkt har du måske mødt et par

from your own hometown, and you thought,

fra ens hjemby, og du tænkte,

"Oh, my God, these people are so warm. They're so nice to me.

"Ej for Søren, disse mennesker er så varme. De er så flinke overfor mig.

I mean, compared to all these people who hate me

Jeg mener, sammenlignet med disse mennesker der hader mig

when I try to speak their language and hate me more when I don't,

når jeg prøver at tale deres sprog, og hader mig endnu mere når jeg ikke gør,

these people are just wonderful." And so you tour France with them,

er disse mennesker vidunderlige.". Så du rejser gennem Frankrig med dem,

and then you get home and you invite them over for dinner,

og når du kommer hjem og man inviterer dem over til middag,

and what do you find?

hvad finder du så ud af?

Compared to your regular friends,

Sammenlignet med dine almindelige venner,

they are boring and dull, right? Because in this new context,

er de kedelige og uinteressante, ikke? Fordi i denne nye sammenhæng,

the comparison is very, very different. In fact, you find yourself

er sammenligningen meget, meget anderledes. Faktisk, synes du

disliking them enough almost to qualify for French citizenship.

at du kan lide dem så lidt, at de kvalificerer sig til et fransk statsborgerskab.

Now, you have exactly the same problem when you shop for a stereo.

Og du har præcis det samme problem, når man er på indkøb efter et stereoanlæg.

You go to the stereo store, you see two sets of speakers --

Du går ind i butikken og ser to sæt højtalere,

these big, boxy, monoliths, and these little, sleek speakers,

disse store, firkantede monolitter, og disse små, slanke højtalere,

and you play them, and you go, you know, I do hear a difference:

og du hører dem, og siger, ved du, jeg kan høre en forskel:

the big ones sound a little better.

de store lyder lidt bedre.

And so you buy them, and you bring them home,

Så dem køber man, og man tager dem med hjem,

and you entirely violate the décor of your house.

og man smadrer fuldstændig indretningen i ens hus.

And the problem, of course, is that this comparison you made in the store

Og problemet er selvfølgelig, at denne sammenligning man lavede i butikken,

is a comparison you'll never make again.

er en sammenligning man aldrig laver igen.

What are the odds that years later you'll turn on the stereo and go,

Hvad er oddsene for, at man flere år senere tænder for anlægget og siger,

"Sounds so much better than those little ones,"

"Det lyder meget bedre end de små"

which you can't even remember hearing.

som man ikke engang kan huske at have hørt.

The problem of shifting comparisons is even more difficult

Problemet med skiftende sammenligninger er endnu svære,

when these choices are arrayed over time.

når disse valgmuligheder bliver spredt over tid.

People have a lot of trouble making decisions

Mennesker har en masse besvær med at træffe beslutninger

about things that will happen at different points in time.

om ting der vil ske på forskellige tidspunkter.

And what psychologists and behavioral economists have discovered

Og hvad psykologer og adfærdsøkonomer har opdaget

is that by and large people use two simple rules.

er at mennesker mere eller mindre bruger to regler.

So let me give you one very easy problem, a second very easy problem

Så lad mig give jer et meget nemt problem, et andet meget nemt problem

and then a third, hard, problem.

og så et tredje, svært problem.

Here's the first easy problem:

Her er det første, nemme problem:

You can have 60 dollars now or 50 dollars now. Which would you prefer?

Man kan få 60 dollars nu, eller 50 dollars nu. Hvad foretrækker I?

This is what we call a one-item IQ test, OK?

Det er hvad vi kalder en én-genstands IQ test, OK?

All of us, I hope, prefer more money, and the reason is,

Vi foretrækker alle, håber jeg, flere penge og grunden er,

we believe more is better than less.

at mere er bedre end mindre.

Here's the second problem:

Her er det andet problem:

You can have 60 dollars today or 60 dollars in a month. Which would you prefer?

I kan få 60 dollars nu eller 60 dollars om en måned. Hvad foretrækker I?

Again, an easy decision,

Igen, en nem beslutning,

because we all know that now is better than later.

fordi vi ved alle at nu er bedre end senere.

What's hard in our decision-making is when these two rules conflict.

Hvad der er svært i vores beslutningsprocess, er når disse to regler konflikter.

For example, when you're offered 50 dollars now or 60 dollars in a month.

For eksempel, hvis man bliver tilbudt 50 dollars nu, eller 60 dollars om en måned.

This typifies a lot of situations in life in which you will gain

Dette er symptomatisk for mange situationer i livet, hvor man vil få mere

by waiting, but you have to be patient.

ved at vente, men hvor man skal være tålmodig.

What do we know? What do people do in these kinds of situations?

Hvad ved vi? Hvad gør folk i denne slags situationer?

Well, by and large people are enormously impatient.

Jamen, i det store hele er folk utrolig utålmodige.

That is, they require interest rates in the hundred

Altså, de kræver renter i størrelsesordenen hundrede

or thousands of percents in order to delay gratification

eller tusinde procent, for at behovsudsætte

and wait until next month for the extra 10 dollars.

og vente til næste måned, for at få de ekstra 10 dollars.

Maybe that isn't so remarkable, but what is remarkable is

Måske er det ikke så bemærkelsesværdigt, men hvad der er bemærkelsesværdigt er,

how easy it is to make this impatience go away by simply changing

hvor nemt det er at få denne utålmodighed til at gå væk, ved simpelthen at ændre

when the delivery of these monetary units will happen.

hvornår afleveringen af disse monetære enheder vil ske.

Imagine that you can have 50 dollars in a year -- that's 12 months --

Forestil jer, at man kan få 50 dollars om et år -- det er 12 måneder --

or 60 dollars in 13 months.

eller 60 dollars om 13 måneder.

What do we find now?

Hvad ser vi nu?

People are gladly willing to wait: as long as they're waiting 12,

Mennesker venter gladeligt: Når de alligevel venter 12 måneder,

they might as well wait 13.

så kan de lige så godt vente 13.

What makes this dynamic inconsistency happen?

Hvad får denne dynamiske inkonsistens til at forekomme?

Comparison. Troubling comparison. Let me show you.

Sammenligning. Bekymrende sammenligning. Lad mig vise jer.

This is just a graph showing the results that I just suggested

Her er en graf der viser resultaterne som jeg foreslog

you would show if I gave you time to respond, which is,

ville vise, at hvis jeg gav jer tid til at svare,

people find that the subjective value of 50 is higher

finder mennesker at den subjektive værdi af 50 er højere,

than the subjective value of 60 when they'll be delivered in now

end den subjektive værdi af 60, når de bliver afleveret henholdsvis nu

or one month, respectively -- a 30-day delay --

eller om en måned -- en 30 dages forsinkelse --

but they show the reverse pattern when you push the entire decision

men de viser det modsatte, når man skubber hele beslutningen

off into the future a year.

et år ind i fremtiden.

Now, why in the world do you get this pattern of results?

Men, hvorfor i alverden får man dette mønster af resultater?

These guys can tell us.

Disse gutter kan fortælle os det.

What you see here are two lads,

Hvad man ser her er to gutter,

one of them larger than the other: the fireman and the fiddler.

en af dem er større end den anden: Brandmanden og en spillemand.

They are going to recede towards the vanishing point in the horizon,

De vil trække sig mod forsvindingspunktet i horisonten,

and I want you to notice two things.

og man vil bemærke to ting.

At no point will the fireman look taller than the fiddler. No point.

På intet tidspunkt vil brandmanden syne højere end spillemanden. Intet tidspunkt.

However, the difference between them seems to be getting smaller.

Men, forskellen mellem dem virker til at blive mindre.

First it's an inch in your view, then it's a quarter-inch,

Til at begynde med er det to og en halv centimeter, så er det en halv centimeter,

then a half-inch, and then finally they go off the edge of the earth.

så halvanden centimeter, for til sidst at forsvinde over jordens kant.

Here are the results of what I just showed you.

Her er resultaterne af hvad jeg lige har vist jer.

This is the subjective height --

Dette er den subjektive højde --

the height you saw of these guys at various points.

højden af de to gutter som I lige så, på forskellige tidspunkter.

And I want you to see that two things are true.

Og jeg vil gerne have at I lægger mærke til to ting der er sande.

One, the farther away they are, the smaller they look;

Et, jo længere væk de er, jo mindre ser de ud;

and two, the fireman is always bigger than the fiddler.

og to, brandmanden er altid større end spillemanden.

But watch what happens when we make some of them disappear. Right.

Men læg mærke til hvad der sker, når vi lader nogle af dem forsvinde. Ikke.

At a very close distance, the fiddler looks taller than the fireman,

På meget tæt hold, ser spillemanden højere ud end brandmanden,

but at a far distance

men på lang afstand

their normal, their true, relations are preserved.

deres normale, er deres sande forhold bevaret.

As Plato said, what space is to size, time is to value.

Som Platon sagde, hvad rum er for størrelse, er tid for værdi.

These are the results of the hard problem I gave you:

Dette er resultaterne af det svære problem jeg gav jer:

60 now or 50 in a month?

60 nu, eller 50 om en måned?

And these are subjective values,

Og dette er de subjektive værdier,

and what you can see is, our two rules are preserved.

og hvad I kan ser er, at vores to regler er bevaret.

People always think more is better than less:

Mennesker mener altid mere er bedre end mindre:

60 is always better than 50,

60 er altid bedre end 50,

and they always think now is better than later:

og de mener altid at nu er bedre end senere:

the bars on this side are higher than the bars on this side.

Søjlerne på denne side er højere end søjlerne på denne side.

Watch what happens when we drop some out.

Se hvad der sker, når vi lader nogle forsvinde.

Suddenly we have the dynamic inconsistency that puzzled us.

Pludselig har en den dynamiske inkonsistens der forvirrede os.

We have the tendency for people to go for 50 dollars now

Vi har en tendens til at folk går efter 50 dollars nu

over waiting a month, but not if that decision is far in the future.

i stedet for at vente en måned, men ikke hvis den beslutning ligger langt ude i fremtiden.

Notice something interesting that this implies -- namely, that

Læg mærke til noget interessant som dette antyder -- nemlig det,

when people get to the future, they will change their minds.

at når mennesker når fremtiden, vil de ændre mening.

That is, as that month 12 approaches, you will say,

Det vil sige, som den tolvte måned kommer tættere på, siger man,

what was I thinking, waiting an extra month for 60 dollars?

hvad tænkte jeg dog på, at vente en ekstra måned for 60 dollars?

I'll take the 50 dollars now.

Jeg tager de 50 dollars nu.

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this:

Jamen, spørgsmålet som jeg gerne vil slutte med, er dette:

If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon?

Hvis vi er så forbandet dumme, hvordan kom vi til månen?

Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence

Fordi jeg kunne fortsætte et par timer med at vise beviser,

of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

på menneskers manglende evne til at vurdere odds og manglende evne til at vurdere værdi.

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard

Svaret på spørgsmålet er, tror jeg, er et svar I allerede har hørt

in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again:

i nogle af disse taler, og jeg tør godt sige at I vil høre det igen:

namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world

nemlig, at vores hjerne er udviklet til en meget anden verden,

than the one in which we are living.

end den vi bor i nu.

They were evolved for a world

De blev udviklet til en verden

in which people lived in very small groups,

hvor mennesker boede sammen i meget små grupper,

rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves,

sjældent mødte nogen der var meget anderledes end sig selv,

had rather short lives in which there were few choices

havde ret korte liv, med færre valg involveret

and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

og den højeste prioritet var at spise og parre sig i dag.

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us

Bernoullis gave, Bernoullis lille formel, tillader os, fortæller os

how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us.

hvordan vi burde tænke i en verden, som naturen ikke har designet os til.

That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains

Det forklarer hvorfor vi er så dårlige til at bruge den, men det forklarer også

why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast.

hvorfor det er så utrolig vigtigt at vi bliver gode, hurtigt.

We are the only species on this planet

Vi er den eneste art på denne planet,

that has ever held its own fate in its hands.

der har holdt sin egen skæbne i hænderne.

We have no significant predators,

Der er ikke nogen rovdyr der lever af mennesker,

we're the masters of our physical environment;

vi er herrer over vores fysiske omgivelser;

the things that normally cause species to become extinct

tingene der normalt får en art til at uddø,

are no longer any threat to us.

er ikke længere en trussel for os.

The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us

Den eneste ting -- den eneste ting -- der kan knuse os og blive vores undergang

are our own decisions.

er vores egne beslutninger.

If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because

Hvis vi ikke er her om 10.000 år, er det fordi

we could not take advantage of the gift given to us

vi ikke kunne udnytte den gave der er givet os,

by a young Dutch fellow in 1738,

af en ung, hollandsk gut i 1738,

because we underestimated the odds of our future pains

fordi vi undervurderede oddsene af vores fremtidige pinsler,

and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.

og overvurderede værdien af vores nutidige glæder.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Chris Anderson: That was remarkable.

Chris Anderson: Det var bemærkelsesværdigt.

We have time for some questions for Dan Gilbert. One and two.

Vi har tid til et par spørgsmål til Dan Gilbert. Et og to.

Bill Lyell: Would you say that this mechanism

Bill Lyell: Ville du sige, at denne mekanisme

is in part how terrorism actually works to frighten us,

til dels er hvordan terrorisme faktisk virker for at skræmme os,

and is there some way that we could counteract that?

og er der en måde hvorpå vi kan modvirke det?

Dan Gilbert: I actually was consulting recently

Dan Gilbert: Jeg rådgav faktisk for nyligt

with the Department of Homeland Security, which generally believes

ministeriet for national sikkerhed, som generelt tror på

that American security dollars should go to making borders safer.

at amerikanske sikkerhedsdollars burde gå til at gøre vores grænser mere sikre.

I tried to point out to them that terrorism was a name

Jeg prøvede at forklare dem, at terrorisme var et navn

based on people's psychological reaction to a set of events,

som er baseret på menneskers psykologiske reaktion på en række begivenheder,

and that if they were concerned about terrorism they might ask

og hvis de var bekymrede for terrorisme, burde de spørge

what causes terror and how can we stop people from being terrified,

hvad der forårsager terror, og hvordan vi kan stoppe mennesker fra at blive rædselsslagne,

rather than -- not rather than, but in addition to

i stedet for -- ikke i stedet for, men i tillæg til

stopping the atrocities that we're all concerned about.

at stoppe grusomhederne som vi alle er bekymrede for.

Surely the kinds of play that at least American media give to --

Den slags opmærksomhed som, i hvert fald den amerikanske presse, helt sikkert giver til --

and forgive me, but in raw numbers these are very tiny accidents.

og undskyld mig, men i hårde tal, er dette meget små uheld.

We already know, for example, in the United States,

Vi ved allerede, for eksempel, i USA,

more people have died as a result of not taking airplanes --

er flere folk døde som resultat af ikke at flyve,

because they were scared -- and driving on highways,

fordi de var bange -- og valgte motorvejen,

than were killed in 9/11. OK?

end der blev dræbt ved 11. september angrebene. OK?

If I told you that there was a plague

Hvis jeg fortalte dig, at der var en pest

that was going to kill 15,000 Americans next year,

der ville dræbe 15.000 amerikanere næste år,

you might be alarmed if you didn't find out it was the flu.

ville du måske blive foruroliget, hvis du ikke vidste at det er influenza.

These are small-scale accidents, and we should be wondering

Dette er uheld i en lille målestok, og vi burde spekulere over

whether they should get the kind of play,

om de burde få den opmærksomhed,

the kind of coverage, that they do.

den slags dækning, som de gør.

Surely that causes people to overestimate the likelihood

Det får helt sikkert folk til at overvurdere sandsynligheden

that they'll be hurt in these various ways,

for at de vil komme til skade, på disse forskellige måder

and gives power to the very people who want to frighten us.

og giver magt til præcis de mennesker der vil skræmme os.

CA: Dan, I'd like to hear more on this. So, you're saying

CA: Dan, jeg kunne godt tænke mig at høre mere om dette. Så det du siger er,

that our response to terror is, I mean, it's a form of mental bug?

at vores reaktion på terror er, jeg mener, det er en slags mental fejl?

Talk more about it.

Fortæl mere om det.

DG: It's out-sized. I mean, look.

DG: Det er overdimensioneret. Jeg mener, hør engang.

If Australia disappears tomorrow,

Hvis Australien forsvinder i morgen,

terror is probably the right response.

er rædsel nok den rigtige reaktion.

That's an awful large lot of very nice people. On the other hand,

Det er en utrolig stor mængde rigtig søde mennesker. På den anden side,

when a bus blows up and 30 people are killed,

når en bus springer i luften og 30 mennesker bliver dræbt,

more people than that were killed

blev der dræbt flere mennesker end der bliver

by not using their seatbelts in the same country.

ved ikke at bruge deres sikkerhedssele i det samme land.

Is terror the right response?

Er rædsel den rigtige reaktion?

CA: What causes the bug? Is it the drama of the event --

CA: Hvad forårsager fejlen? Er det det dramatiske ved begivenheden --

that it's so spectacular?

at det er så opsigtsvækkende?

Is it the fact that it's an intentional attack by, quote, outsiders?

Skyldes det at det er et forsætligt angreb af, anførselstegn, fremmede?

What is it?

Hvad er det?

DG: Yes. It's a number of things, and you hit on several of them.

DG: Ja. Det er en række ting, og du har nævnt nogle af dem.

First, it's a human agent trying to kill us --

For det første, det er en menneskelig aktør der prøver at dræbe os --

it's not a tree falling on us by accident.

det er ikke et træ der falder over os ved et uheld.

Second, these are enemies who may want to strike and hurt us again.

For det andet, er dette fjender der måske vil angribe og dræbe os igen.

People are being killed for no reason instead of good reason --

Mennesker bliver dræbt uden nogen grund, i stedet for en god grund --

as if there's good reason, but sometimes people think there are.

som om der er en god grund, men nogen gange tror mennesker der er det.

So there are a number of things that together

Så der er en række ting der til sammen

make this seem like a fantastic event, but let's not play down

får dette til at se ud som en fantastisk begivenhed, men lad os ikke undervurdere

the fact that newspapers sell when people see something in it

det faktum, at aviserne sælger når folk ser noget i dem

they want to read. So there's a large role here played by the media,

som de vil læse. Så medierne spiller en stor rolle her,

who want these things to be

som vil have at disse ting er

as spectacular as they possibly can.

så spektakulære som muligt.

CA: I mean, what would it take to persuade our culture to downplay it?

CA: Jeg mener, hvad ville det kræve at overbevise vores kultur at nedtone det?

DG: Well, go to Israel. You know,

DG: Jamen, se på Israel. Du ved,

go to Israel. And a mall blows up,

se på Israel. Og et indkøbscenter sprænger i luften,

and then everybody's unhappy about it, and an hour-and-a-half later --

og så er alle ulykkelige over det, og halvanden time senere --

at least when I was there, and I was 150 feet from the mall

i hvert fald da jeg var der, og jeg stod 45 meter derfra

when it blew up -- I went back to my hotel

da det sprængte i luften -- jeg tog tilbage til mit hotel

and the wedding that was planned was still going on.

og brylluppet der var planlagt, var stadig i gang.

And as the Israeli mother said,

Og som den israelske mor sagde,

she said, "We never let them win by stopping weddings."

hun sagde, "Vi lader dem aldrig vinde, ved at stoppe bryllupper".

I mean, this is a society that has learned --

Jeg mener, dette er et samfund der har lært --

and there are others too -- that has learned to live

og der er også andre -- der har lært at leve

with a certain amount of terrorism and not be quite as upset by it,

med en bestemt mængde terrorisme og ikke blive helt så berørt af det,

shall I say, as those of us who have not had many terror attacks.

skulle jeg sige, som os der ikke har oplevet nogen terror angreb.

CA: But is there a rational fear that actually,

CA: Men er der en rationel frygt der faktisk,

the reason we're frightened about this is because we think that

grunden til at vi er bange for dette, er fordi vi tror at

the Big One is to come?

Den Store kommer?

DG: Yes, of course. So, if we knew that this was the worst attack

DG: Ja, selvfølgelig. Så, hvis vi vidste at dette var det værste angreb

there would ever be, there might be more and more buses of 30 people --

der ville komme, der ville måske være flere og flere busser med 30 mennesker --

we would probably not be nearly so frightened.

ville vi nok ikke være nær så skrækslange.

I don't want to say -- please, I'm going to get quoted somewhere

Jeg vil ikke sige -- vær så venlig ikke at citere mig nogen steder

as saying, "Terrorism is fine and we shouldn't be so distressed."

for at sige, "Terrorisme er fint, og vi burde ikke være så ulykkelige".

That's not my point at all.

Det er slet ikke min pointe.

What I'm saying is that, surely, rationally,

Det jeg siger er, at forhåbentligt, rationelt,

our distress about things that happen, about threats,

er vores ulykkelighed over ting der sker, over trusler,

should be roughly proportional to the size of those threats

burde være nogenlunde proportionelle med størrelsen af disse trusler

and threats to come.

og kommende trusler.

I think in the case of terrorism, it isn't.

Jeg tror i tilfælde af terrorisme, er det ikke sådan.

And many of the things we've heard about from our speakers today --

Og mange af tingene som vi har hørt om, fra vores talere i dag --

how many people do you know got up and said,

hvor mange mennesker kender du, der kom op og sagde,

Poverty! I can't believe what poverty is doing to us.

Fattigdom! Jeg kan ikke forestille mig hvad fattigdom gør ved os.

People get up in the morning; they don't care about poverty.

Mennesker står op om morgenen; de er ligeglade med fattigdom.

It's not making headlines, it's not making news, it's not flashy.

Det skaber ikke overskrifter, det skaber ikke nyheder, det er ikke iøjefaldende.

There are no guns going off.

Der bliver ikke skudt med pistoler.

I mean, if you had to solve one of these problems, Chris,

Jeg mener, hvis du skulle løse et af disse problemer, Chris,

which would you solve? Terrorism or poverty?

hvilket ville du løse? Terrorisme eller fattigdom?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

That's a tough one.

Det er en svær én.

CA: There's no question.

CA: Der er ikke nogen tvivl.

Poverty, by an order of magnitude, a huge order of magnitude,

Fattigdom, med henblik på størrelsesordenen, en enorm størrelsesorden,

unless someone can show that there's, you know,

medmindre nogen kan vise mig at det er, du ved,

terrorists with a nuke are really likely to come.

sandsynligt at der kommer terrorister med en atombombe.

The latest I've read, seen, thought

Det jeg senest har læst, set, tænkt

is that it's incredibly hard for them to do that.

er at det er utrolig svært for dem at gøre det.

If that turns out to be wrong, we all look silly,

Hvis det viser sig at være forkert, ser vi alle dumme ud,

but with poverty it's a bit --

men med fattigdom er det lidt --

DG: Even if that were true, still more people die from poverty.

DG: Selv hvis det var sandt, stadig flere mennesker dør af fattigdom.

CA: We've evolved to get all excited

CA: Vi har udviklet os til at blive ophidset

about these dramatic attacks. Is that because in the past,

over disse dramatiske angreb. Det er fordi, i fortiden,

in the ancient past, we just didn't understand things like disease

i forhistorisk tid, forstod vi bare ikke ting som sygdom

and systems that cause poverty and so forth,

og systemer der forårsagede fattigdom og så videre,

and so it made no sense for us as a species to put any energy

så det gav ikke nogen mening for os som art, at bruge nogen energi

into worrying about those things?

på at bekymre os om disse ting?

People died; so be it.

Mennesker døde; sådan er det.

But if you got attacked, that was something you could do something about.

Men hvis man blev angrebet, var det noget man kunne gøre noget ved.

And so we evolved these responses.

Så vi udviklede disse reaktioner.

Is that what happened?

Er det hvad der skete?

DG: Well, you know, the people who are most skeptical

DG: Jamen, du ved, de mennesker der er mest skeptiske

about leaping to evolutionary explanations for everything

over at bruge evolutionære forklaringer til alt,

are the evolutionary psychologists themselves.

er de evolutions psykologerne selv.

My guess is that there's nothing quite that specific

Mit gæt er, at der ikke er noget der er helt så specifikt

in our evolutionary past. But rather, if you're looking for

i vores evolutionære fortid. Men, hvis man i stedet kigger efter

an evolutionary explanation, you might say

en evolutionær forklaring, kunne man sige

that most organisms are neo-phobic -- that is, they're a little scared

at de fleste organismer er neofobe -- det vil sige, at de er lidt skræmte

of stuff that's new and different.

af ting der er nye og anderledes.

And there's a good reason to be,

Og det er der en god grund til,

because old stuff didn't eat you. Right?

fordi gamle ting ikke spiste en. Ikke?

Any animal you see that you've seen before is less likely

Ethvert dyr man ser, som man har set før, er der mindre sandsynlighed for

to be a predator than one that you've never seen before.

at være et rovdyr, end et dyr man aldrig har set før.

So, you know, when a school bus is blown up and we've never seen this before,

Så, du ved, når en skolebus bliver sprængt i luften, og man aldrig har set det før,

our general tendency is to orient towards

er vores generelle tendens at orientere os imod

that which is new and novel is activated.

det der er nyt og uset på området.

I don't think it's quite as specific a mechanism

Jeg tror ikke det er lige så specifik en mekanisme,

as the one you alluded to, but maybe a more fundamental one underlying it.

som den du hentydede til, men måske mere en fundamental der ligger under den.

Jay Walker: You know, economists love to talk about

Jay Walker: Du ved, økonomer elsker at tale om

the stupidity of people who buy lottery tickets. But I suspect

dumheden af mennesker der køber lottokuponer. Men jeg formoder

you're making the exact same error you're accusing those people of,

at du laver præcis den samme fejl, som du anklager mennesker for

which is the error of value.

som er fejlen af værdi.

I know, because I've interviewed

Jeg ved det, fordi jeg har interviewet

about 1,000 lottery buyers over the years.

cirka 1.000 lottokupon købere over årene.

It turns out that the value of buying a lottery ticket is not winning.

Det viser sig, at den ægte værdi af at købe en lottokupon ikke er at vinde.

That's what you think it is. All right?

Det er det man tror det er. Ikke?

The average lottery buyer buys about 150 tickets a year,

Den gennemsnitlige lottokuponkøber, køber cirka 150 kuponer om året,

so the buyer knows full well that he or she is going to lose,

så køberen ved udemærket, at han eller hun vil tabe,

and yet she buys 150 tickets a year. Why is that?

og alligevel køber hun 150 kuponer om året. Hvorfor det?

It's not because she is stupid or he is stupid.

Det er ikke fordi hun er dum eller han er dum.

It's because the anticipation of possibly winning

Det er fordi forventningen om muligvis at vinde

releases serotonin in the brain, and actually provides a good feeling

udløser serotonin i hjernen, og faktisk udløser en god fornemmelse

until the drawing indicates you've lost.

indtil trækningen viser at man har tabt.

Or, to put it another way, for the dollar investment,

Eller, for at sige det på denne måde, for en investering på en dollar

you can have a much better feeling than flushing the money

kan man have en meget bedre følelse, end ved at skylle pengene

down the toilet, which you cannot have a good feeling from.

ud af toilettet, som man ikke kan få en god følelse fra.

Now, economists tend to --

Men økonomer har en tendens til --

(Applause)

(Bifald)

-- economists tend to view the world

-- økonomer har en tendens til at se verden

through their own lenses, which is:

gennem deres egen linse, hvilket er:

this is just a bunch of stupid people.

dette er bare en stakfuld dumme mennesker.

And as a result, many people look at economists as stupid people.

Og som resultat, ser mange mennesker på økonomer som dumme mennesker.

And so fundamentally, the reason we got to the moon is,

Så fundamentalt, er grunden til at vi tog til månen,

we didn't listen to the economists. Thank you very much.

er fordi vi ikke lyttede til økonomer. Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

DG: Well, no, it's a great point. It remains to be seen

DG: Jamen, nej, det er en god pointe. Det vil vise sig

whether the joy of anticipation is exactly equaled

om forventningens glæde svarer præcis til

by the amount of disappointment after the lottery. Because remember,

mængden af skuffelse efter trækningen. Fordi, husk lige på,

people who didn't buy tickets don't feel awful the next day either,

at mennesker der ikke købte kuponer, har det heller ikke dårligt dagen efter,

even though they don't feel great during the drawing.

selvom de ikke har en god følelse under trækningen.

I would disagree that people know they're not going to win.

Jeg er uenig i at mennesker ved at de ikke vinder.

I think they think it's unlikely, but it could happen,

Jeg mener, at de tror det er usandsynligt, men at det kunne ske

which is why they prefer that to the flushing.

hvilket er hvorfor de foretrækker det frem for udskylningen.

But certainly I see your point: that there can be

Men jeg ser bestemt pointen: at der kan være

some utility to buying a lottery ticket other than winning.

nogen nytteværdi i at købe en lottokupon, andet end at vinde.

Now, I think there's many good reasons not to listen to economists.

Nu synes jeg der er mange gode grunde til ikke at stole på økonomer.

That isn't one of them, for me, but there's many others.

Det er ikke én af dem, for mig, men der er mange andre.

CA: Last question.

CA: Sidste spørgsmål.

Aubrey de Grey: My name's Aubrey de Grey, from Cambridge.

Aubrey de Grey: Mit navn er Aubrey de Grey, fra Cambridge.

I work on the thing that kills more people than anything else kills --

Jeg arbejder med tingen der dræber flere mennesker end noget andet --

I work on aging -- and I'm interested in doing something about it,

jeg arbejder med aldring -- og jeg er interesseret i at gøre noget ved det,

as we'll all hear tomorrow.

som vi alle kommer til at høre i morgen.

I very much resonate with what you're saying,

Det du siger giver utrolig meget genlyd hos mig,

because it seems to me that the problem

fordi det virker på mig til at problemet

with getting people interested in doing anything about aging

med at få mennesker interesseret i at gøre noget ved aldring

is that by the time aging is about to kill you it looks like cancer

er, at over tid vil aldring slå en ihjel, det ligner kræft

or heart disease or whatever. Do you have any advice?

eller hjerteproblemer eller noget andet. Har du nogen råd?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

DG: For you or for them?

DG: Til dig eller til dem?

AdG: In persuading them.

AdG: I at overtale dem.

DG: Ah, for you in persuading them.

DG: Ah, for at du kan overtale dem.

Well, it's notoriously difficult to get people to be farsighted.

Jamen, det er notorisk svært at få folk til at tænke langsigtet.

But one thing that psychologists have tried that seems to work

Men en ting psykologerne har prøvet, der lader til at virke

is to get people to imagine the future more vividly.

er at få folk til at tænke mere levende på fremtiden.

One of the problems with making decisions about the far future

Et af problemerne med at tage beslutninger om den fjerne fremtid er

and the near future is that we imagine the near future

og den nærme fremtid er, at vi forestiller at den nærme fremtid

much more vividly than the far future.

meget mere levende end den fjerne fremtid.

To the extent that you can equalize the amount of detail

I den udstrækning at man kan udligne mængden af detaljer

that people put into the mental representations

som mennesker sætter i mentale repræsentationer

of near and far future, people begin to make decisions

af den nære og fjerne fremtid, mennesker begynder at tage beslutninger

about the two in the same way.

om de to, på samme måde.

So, would you like to have an extra 100,000 dollars when you're 65

Så, hvis man vil have 100.000 dollars ekstra når man bliver 65

is a question that's very different than,

er et spørgsmål der er meget anderledes end,

imagine who you'll be when you're 65: will you be living,

forestil dig hvem du er, når du bliver 65: vil du være i live,

what will you look like, how much hair will you have,

hvordan vil du se ud, hvor meget hår har du,

who will you be living with.

hvem vil du leve sammen med.

Once we have all the details of that imaginary scenario,

Når vi har alle detaljerne af det tænkte scenarie,

suddenly we feel like it might be important to save

føler vi pludselig, at det måske er vigtigt at spare op

so that that guy has a little retirement money.

så den fyr har en lille pensionsopsparing.

But these are tricks around the margins.

Men dette er kneb i småtingsafdelingen.

I think in general you're battling a very fundamental human tendency,

Jeg tror, at du generelt kæmper mod en meget fundamental menneskelig tendens,

which is to say, "I'm here today,

hvilket er at sige, "Jeg er her i dag,

and so now is more important than later."

så nu er mere vigtigt end senere".

CA: Dan, thank you. Members of the audience,

CA: Dan, tak. Medlemmer af publikummet,

that was a fantastic session. Thank you.

det var en fantastisk forelæsning. Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)