The art of choosing | Sheena Iyengar | TED

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

Today, I'm going to take you

I dag, vil jeg tage jer

around the world in 18 minutes.

med rundt i verden på 18 minutter.

My base of operations is in the U.S.,

Min hjemmebase er i USA,

but let's start at the other end of the map,

men lad os begynde i den anden ende af kortet,

in Kyoto, Japan,

i Kyoto, Japan,

where I was living with a Japanese family

hvor jeg boede hos en japansk familie

while I was doing part of my dissertational research

mens jeg lavede en del af min doktorafhandling

15 years ago.

for 15 år siden.

I knew even then that I would encounter

Jeg vidste endda dengang at jeg ville møde

cultural differences and misunderstandings,

kulturelle forskelle og misforståelser,

but they popped up when I least expected it.

men de poppede op da jeg mindst ventede det.

On my first day,

På min første dag,

I went to a restaurant,

tog jeg til en restaurant,

and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar.

og jeg bestilte en kop grøn te med sukker.

After a pause, the waiter said,

Efter en pause, sagde tjeneren,

"One does not put sugar in green tea."

"Man putter ikke sukker i grøn te."

"I know," I said. "I'm aware of this custom.

"Det ved jeg," sagde jeg. "Jeg er klar over denne skik.

But I really like my tea sweet."

Men jeg kan godt lide at min te er sød."

In response, he gave me an even more courteous version

Som svar, gav han mig en endnu mere høflig version

of the same explanation.

af den samme forklaring.

"One does not put sugar

"Man putter ikke sukker

in green tea."

i grøn te."

"I understand," I said,

"Jeg forstår," sagde jeg,

"that the Japanese do not put sugar in their green tea,

"at japanerne ikke putter sukker i deres grønne te,

but I'd like to put some sugar

men jeg vil gerne putte noget sukker

in my green tea."

i min grønne te."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Surprised by my insistence,

Overrasket over min insisteren,

the waiter took up the issue with the manager.

nævnte tjeneren emnet for sin chef,

Pretty soon,

Snart

a lengthy discussion ensued,

startede en lang diskussion,

and finally the manager came over to me and said,

og til slut kom chefen over til mig og sagde,

"I am very sorry. We do not have sugar."

"Det er jeg meget ked af. Vi har ikke noget sukker."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Well, since I couldn't have my tea the way I wanted it,

Jamen, siden jeg ikke kunne få min te som jeg gerne ville have den,

I ordered a cup of coffee,

bestilte jeg en kop kaffe,

which the waiter brought over promptly.

som tjeneren kom prompte med.

Resting on the saucer

Liggende på min underkop

were two packets of sugar.

var der to pakker sukker.

My failure to procure myself

Min fiasko til at skaffe mig selv

a cup of sweet, green tea

en kop sød, grøn te

was not due to a simple misunderstanding.

handlede ikke om en simpel misforståelse.

This was due to a fundamental difference

Dette handlede om en fundamentale forskel

in our ideas about choice.

i vores ideer om valg.

From my American perspective,

Fra mit amerikanske perspektiv,

when a paying customer makes a reasonable request

når en betalende kunde kommer med en rimelig forespørgsel

based on her preferences,

baseret på hendes præferencer,

she has every right to have that request met.

har hun enhver ret til at få den forespørgsel efterkommet.

The American way, to quote Burger King,

Den amerikanske måde, for at citere Burger King,

is to "have it your way,"

er at "få det på din måde,"

because, as Starbucks says,

fordi, som Starbucks siger,

"happiness is in your choices."

"glæde ligger i ens valg."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

But from the Japanese perspective,

Men fra det japanske perspektiv,

it's their duty to protect those who don't know any better --

er det deres pligt at beskytte dem der ikke ved bedre --

(Laughter)

(Latter)

in this case, the ignorant gaijin --

i dette tilfælde, den ignorante gaijin --

from making the wrong choice.

fra at tage det forkerte valg.

Let's face it: the way I wanted my tea

Lad os se det i øjnene: måden jeg ville have min te på

was inappropriate according to cultural standards,

var upassende ifølge de kulturelle standarder,

and they were doing their best to help me save face.

og de gør deres bedste for at hjælpe mig med ikke at tabe ansigt.

Americans tend to believe

Amerikanere har en tendens til at tro

that they've reached some sort of pinnacle

at de har nået en eller anden form for kulmination

in the way they practice choice.

i måden hvorpå de udøver valg.

They think that choice, as seen through the American lens

De mener at valg, der set med amerikanske øjne

best fulfills an innate and universal

bedst opfylder et medfødt og universelt

desire for choice in all humans.

begær for valg i alle mennesker.

Unfortunately,

Desværre,

these beliefs are based on assumptions

er disse meninger baseret på formodninger

that don't always hold true

der ikke altid er de samme

in many countries, in many cultures.

i mange lande, i mange kulturer.

At times they don't even hold true

Til tider er de ikke engang de samme

at America's own borders.

ved Amerikas egne grænser.

I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions

Jeg vil gerne diskutere nogle af formodninger

and the problems associated with them.

og problemerne der er associeret med dem.

As I do so, I hope you'll start thinking

I takt med at jeg gør det, håber jeg I vil begynde at tænke

about some of your own assumptions

på nogle af jeres egne formodninger

and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.

og hvordan de blev formet af jeres baggrund.

First assumption:

Første formodning:

if a choice affects you,

hvis et valg påvirker en,

then you should be the one to make it.

så skal man selv være den der tager det.

This is the only way to ensure

Dette er den eneste måde at sikre

that your preferences and interests

at der er gjort fuldstændig rede for

will be most fully accounted for.

ens præferencer og interesser.

It is essential for success.

Det er essentielt for succes.

In America, the primary locus of choice

I Amerika, den primære fokus af valg

is the individual.

er individet.

People must choose for themselves, sometimes sticking to their guns,

Mennesker må vælge for sig selv, og nogle gange holde fast i deres geværer,

regardless of what other people want or recommend.

uanset hvad andre mennesker vil eller anbefaler.

It's called "being true to yourself."

Det hedder "at være tro mod sig selv."

But do all individuals benefit

Men drager alle individer fordel

from taking such an approach to choice?

af at have sådan et tilgang til valg?

Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies

Mark Lepper og jeg lavede en række studier

in which we sought the answer to this very question.

hvor vi søgte at svare på dette spørgsmål.

In one study,

I et studie,

which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco,

som vi kørte i Japantown, San Francisco,

we brought seven- to nine-year-old Anglo- and Asian-American children

tog vi syv til elleveårige anglo- og asiatisk-amerikanske børn

into the laboratory,

ind til laboratoriet,

and we divided them up into three groups.

og vi delte dem op i tre grupper.

The first group came in,

Den første gruppe kom ind,

and they were greeted by Miss Smith,

og de blev hilst velkommen af Miss Smith,

who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles.

der viste dem seks store stakke af anagram puslespil.

The kids got to choose which pile of anagrams they would like to do,

Børnene skulle vælge hvilken stak anagrammer de gerne ville lave,

and they even got to choose which marker

og de skulle endda vælge hvilken marker

they would write their answers with.

de ville skrive deres svar med.

When the second group of children came in,

Da den anden gruppe af børn kom ind,

they were brought to the same room, shown the same anagrams,

blev de brugt det ind i det samme lokale, vist de samme anagrammer,

but this time Miss Smith told them

men denne gang fortalte Miss Smith dem

which anagrams to do

hvilke anagrammer de skulle lave

and which markers to write their answers with.

og hvilke markerer de skulle skrive deres svar med.

Now when the third group came in,

Nu da den tredje gruppe kom ind,

they were told that their anagrams and their markers

blev de fortalt at deres anagrammer og deres markere

had been chosen by their mothers.

var blevet valgt af deres mødre.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

In reality,

I virkeligheden,

the kids who were told what to do,

børnene der blev fortalt hvad de skulle gøre,

whether by Miss Smith or their mothers,

hvad enten det var af Miss Smith eller deres mor,

were actually given the very same activity,

blev faktisk givet præcis den samme aktivitet,

which their counterparts in the first group

som deres modstykke i den første gruppe

had freely chosen.

havde valgt frivilligt.

With this procedure, we were able to ensure

Med denne procedure, var vi i stand til at sikre

that the kids across the three groups

at børnene på tværs af de tre grupper

all did the same activity,

alle sammen lavede den samme aktivitet,

making it easier for us to compare performance.

og gjorde det nemmere for os at sammenligne præstationer.

Such small differences in the way we administered the activity

Så små forskelle i måden hvorpå vi administrerede aktiviteten

yielded striking differences

gav slående forskelle

in how well they performed.

i måden de blev udført.

Anglo-Americans,

Anglo-amerikanere,

they did two and a half times more anagrams

de lavede to og en halv gange flere anagrammer

when they got to choose them,

når de fik lov til at vælge dem,

as compared to when it was

sammenlignet med når det blev

chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers.

valgt for dem af Miss Smith eller deres mødre.

It didn't matter who did the choosing,

Det gjorde ikke nogen forskel hvem der valgte,

if the task was dictated by another,

hvis opgaven blev dikteret af en anden,

their performance suffered.

led deres præstation under det.

In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed

Faktisk, nogle af børnene blev synlig flove

when they were told that their mothers had been consulted.

da de fik fortalt at deres mødre var blevet konsulteret.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

One girl named Mary said,

En pige der hed Mary sagde,

"You asked my mother?"

"Spurgte I min mor?"

(Laughter)

(Latter)

In contrast,

I modsætning til

Asian-American children

asiatisk-amerikanske børn

performed best when they believed

der præsterede bedst når de troede

their mothers had made the choice,

at deres mødre havde valgt opgaven,

second best when they chose for themselves,

næstbedst når de selv kunne vælge,

and least well when it had been chosen by Miss Smith.

og dårligst når de var blevet valgt af Miss Smith.

A girl named Natsumi

En pige der hed Natsumi

even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room

henvendte sig endda til Miss Smith da hun forlod lokalet,

and tugged on her skirt and asked,

og trak i hendes kjole og spurgte,

"Could you please tell my mommy

"Vil du venligst fortælle min mor

I did it just like she said?"

at jeg gjorde det som hun bad om?"

The first-generation children were strongly influenced

Førstegenerations børnene var stærkt påvirkede

by their immigrant parents'

af deres immigrantforældres

approach to choice.

tilgang til valg.

For them, choice was not just a way

For dem, var valg ikke bare en måde

of defining and asserting

at definere og forsikre

their individuality,

deres individualitet,

but a way to create community and harmony

men en måde at skabe fællesskab og harmoni

by deferring to the choices

ved at rette sig efter valg

of people whom they trusted and respected.

truffet af mennesker som de stoler på og respekterer.

If they had a concept of being true to one's self,

Og hvis de havde et koncept om at være tro mod sig selv,

then that self, most likely,

var det selv, sandsynligvis,

[was] composed, not of an individual,

sammensat, ikke af et individ,

but of a collective.

men af et kollektiv.

Success was just as much about pleasing key figures

Succes handlede lige så meget om at glæde nøglefigurer

as it was about satisfying

som at tilfredsstille

one's own preferences.

ens egne præferencer.

Or, you could say that

Eller, skulle man sige at

the individual's preferences were shaped

individets præferencer blev formet

by the preferences of specific others.

af særlige andres præferencer.

The assumption then that we do best

Derfor er formodningen om at vi klarer os bedst

when the individual self chooses

når individet selv vælger

only holds

kun er sandt

when that self

når det selv

is clearly divided from others.

er tydeligt delt fra andre.

When, in contrast,

Når, i modsætning,

two or more individuals

to eller flere individer

see their choices and their outcomes

ser deres valg og deres resultat

as intimately connected,

som værende nøje sammenhængende,

then they may amplify one another's success

så kan de forstærke hinandens succes

by turning choosing

ved at vende valget

into a collective act.

til en kollektiv handling.

To insist that they choose independently

At insistere at de vælger uafhængigt

might actually compromise

kan faktisk gå ud over

both their performance

både deres præstation

and their relationships.

og deres forhold.

Yet that is exactly what

Men alligevel er det præcis det

the American paradigm demands.

det amerikanske paradigme kræver.

It leaves little room for interdependence

Det efterlader meget lidt plads til indbyrdes afhængighed

or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility.

eller en anerkendelse af individuel fejlbarlighed.

It requires that everyone treat choice

Det kræver at alle behandler valg

as a private and self-defining act.

som privat og handling der definerer selvet.

People that have grown up in such a paradigm

Mennesker der er vokset op i sådan et paradigme

might find it motivating,

kan måske finde det motiverende,

but it is a mistake to assume

men det er en fejl at antage

that everyone thrives under the pressure

at alle trives under presset

of choosing alone.

af at vælge selv.

The second assumption which informs the American view of choice

Den anden formodning der informerer om amerikanernes syn på valg

goes something like this.

ser cirka sådan her ud.

The more choices you have,

Jo flere valg man har,

the more likely you are

jo større er sandsynligheden for

to make the best choice.

at man træffer det bedste valg.

So bring it on, Walmart, with 100,000 different products,

Så kom med det, Walmart, med 100.000 forskellige produkter,

and Amazon, with 27 million books

og Amazon, med 27 millioner bøger

and Match.com with -- what is it? --

og Match.com med -- hvad er det? --

15 million date possibilities now.

15 millioner date muligheder nu.

You will surely find the perfect match.

Man vil helt sikkert finde det perfekte match.

Let's test this assumption

Lad os teste formodningen

by heading over to Eastern Europe.

ved at tage over til Østeuropa.

Here, I interviewed people

Her, interviewede jeg mennesker

who were residents of formerly communist countries,

der var indbyggere fra tidligere kommunistiske lande,

who had all faced the challenge

der alle havde stået overfor udfordringen

of transitioning to a more

af at gå over til et mere

democratic and capitalistic society.

demokratisk og kapitalistisk samfund.

One of the most interesting revelations

En af de mest interessante afsløringer

came not from an answer to a question,

kom ikke fra et svar på et spørgsmål,

but from a simple gesture of hospitality.

men fra en simpel gestus af gæstfrihed.

When the participants arrived for their interview,

Da deltagerne ankom til deres interview,

I offered them a set of drinks:

tilbød jeg dem en

Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite --

Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite --

seven, to be exact.

syv, for at være præcis.

During the very first session,

I løbet af det første møde,

which was run in Russia,

der blev afholdt i Rusland,

one of the participants made a comment

kom en af deltagerne med en kommentar

that really caught me off guard.

der virkelig overraskede mig.

"Oh, but it doesn't matter.

"Åh, jamen det betyder ikke noget.

It's all just soda. That's just one choice."

Det er alt sammen sodavand. Det er kun en valgmulighed."

(Murmuring)

(Mumlen)

I was so struck by this comment that from then on,

Jeg blev så ramt af denne kommentar at fra det tidspunkt,

I started to offer all the participants

begyndte jeg at tilbyde alle deltagerne

those seven sodas,

de syv sodavand,

and I asked them, "How many choices are these?"

og jeg spurgte dem, "Hvor mange valg er der her?"

Again and again,

Igen og igen,

they perceived these seven different sodas,

opfattede de de syv forskellige sodavand,

not as seven choices, but as one choice:

ikke som syv valg, men som et valg:

soda or no soda.

sodavand eller ikke sodavand.

When I put out juice and water

Da jeg satte juice og vand ud

in addition to these seven sodas,

ud over disse syv sodavand,

now they perceived it as only three choices --

opfattede de det nu som kun tre valg --

juice, water and soda.

juice, vand og sodavand.

Compare this to the die-hard devotion of many Americans,

Sammenlign dette med den stokkonservative loyalitet af mange amerikanere,

not just to a particular flavor of soda,

ikke kun til en bestemt smagsvariant i sodavand,

but to a particular brand.

men til et bestemt brand.

You know, research shows repeatedly

I ved, forskning viser gang på gang

that we can't actually tell the difference

at vi faktisk ikke kan kende forskel

between Coke and Pepsi.

på Coke og Pepsi.

Of course, you and I know

Selvfølgelig, ved I og jeg

that Coke is the better choice.

at Coke er det bedre valg.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

For modern Americans who are exposed

For moderne amerikanere der er udsatte

to more options and more ads associated with options

for flere valg og flere reklamer der er associerede med valg

than anyone else in the world,

end nogen andre i verden,

choice is just as much about who they are

handler valg lige så meget om hvem de er

as it is about what the product is.

som det handler om hvad produktet er.

Combine this with the assumption that more choices are always better,

Kombiner dette med formodningen om at flere valg altid er bedre,

and you have a group of people for whom every little difference matters

og man har en gruppe mennesker for hvem hver lille forskel er af betydning

and so every choice matters.

så hvert valg betyder noget.

But for Eastern Europeans,

Men for østeuropæere,

the sudden availability of all these

var den pludselige tilgængelighed af alle disse

consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge.

forbrugsgoder på markedspladsen en oversvømmelse.

They were flooded with choice

De blev oversvømmede med valg

before they could protest that they didn't know how to swim.

inden de kunne protestere over at de ikke viste hvordan man svømmer.

When asked, "What words and images

Da de blev spurgte, "Hvilke ord og billeder

do you associate with choice?"

associerer du med valg?"

Grzegorz from Warsaw said,

Grzegorz fra Warszawa sagde,

"Ah, for me it is fear.

"Åh, for mig er det frygt.

There are some dilemmas you see.

Der er nogle dilemmaer man ser.

I am used to no choice."

Jeg er vant til ingen valg."

Bohdan from Kiev said,

Bohdan fra Kiev sagde,

in response to how he felt about

som svar på hvad han følte om

the new consumer marketplace,

den nye forbrugermarkedsplads,

"It is too much.

"Det er for meget.

We do not need everything that is there."

Vi har ikke brug for alt der er der."

A sociologist from

En sociolog fra

the Warsaw Survey Agency explained,

Warsaw Survey Agency forklarede,

"The older generation jumped from nothing

"Den ældre generation hoppede fra ingenting

to choice all around them.

til valg overalt omkring dem.

They were never given a chance to learn

De blev aldrig givet en chance for at lære

how to react."

hvordan de skulle reagere."

And Tomasz, a young Polish man said,

Og Tomasz, en ung polsk mand sagde,

"I don't need twenty kinds of chewing gum.

"Jeg har ikke brug for tyve forskellige slags tyggegummi,

I don't mean to say that I want no choice,

jeg vil ikke sige at jeg vil være fri for valg,

but many of these choices are quite artificial."

men mange af valgene er temmelig kunstige."

In reality, many choices are between things

I virkeligheden, er mange af valgene mellem ting

that are not that much different.

der ikke er så forskellige.

The value of choice

Betydningen af valg

depends on our ability

afhænger af vores evne

to perceive differences

til at opfatte forskelle

between the options.

mellem valgmulighederne.

Americans train their whole lives

Amerikanerne træner hele deres liv

to play "spot the difference."

på at spille "få øje på forskellen."

They practice this from such an early age

De træner dette fra så tidlig en alder

that they've come to believe that everyone

at de er kommet til at tro på at alle

must be born with this ability.

må være blevet født med denne evne.

In fact, though all humans share

Faktisk, selvom alle mennesker deler

a basic need and desire for choice,

et basalt behov og begær for valg,

we don't all see choice in the same places

vi ser ikke alle valg de samme steder

or to the same extent.

eller i samme grad.

When someone can't see how one choice

Når nogen ikke kan se hvordan et valg

is unlike another,

er forskelligt fra et andet,

or when there are too many choices to compare and contrast,

eller når der er for mange valg at sammenligne og kontrastere,

the process of choosing can be

valgprocessen kan være

confusing and frustrating.

forvirrende og frustrerende.

Instead of making better choices,

I stedet for at træffe bedre valg,

we become overwhelmed by choice,

bliver vi overvældede af valg,

sometimes even afraid of it.

nogen gange endda bange for det.

Choice no longer offers opportunities,

Valg tilbyder ikke længere muligheder,

but imposes constraints.

men pålægger begrænsninger.

It's not a marker of liberation,

Det er ikke en markør for frigørelse,

but of suffocation

men af kvælning

by meaningless minutiae.

af betydningsløse bagateller.

In other words,

Med andre ord,

choice can develop into the very opposite

valg kan udvikle sig til det komplet modsatte

of everything it represents

af alt det repræsenterer

in America

i Amerika

when it is thrust upon those

når det bliver påtvunget dem

who are insufficiently prepared for it.

der er utilstrækkeligt forberedt på det.

But it is not only other people

Men det er ikke kun andre mennesker

in other places

andre steder

that are feeling the pressure

der føler presset

of ever-increasing choice.

af evigt tiltagende valg.

Americans themselves are discovering

Amerikanere opdager selv

that unlimited choice

at ubegrænsede valg

seems more attractive in theory

lader til at være mere attraktive i teorien

than in practice.

end i praksis.

We all have physical, mental

Vi har alle fysiske, mentale

and emotional (Laughter) limitations

og emotionelle (Latter) begrænsninger

that make it impossible for us

der gør det umuligt for os

to process every single choice we encounter,

at behandle hvert eneste valg vi træffer,

even in the grocery store,

selv i købmandsforretningen,

let alone over the course of our entire lives.

for slet ikke at tale om i løbet af hele vores liv.

A number of my studies have shown

Et antal af mine studier har vist

that when you give people 10 or more options

at når man giver mennesker 10 eller flere muligheder

when they're making a choice, they make poorer decisions,

når de tager et valg, træffer de dårligere beslutninger,

whether it be health care, investment,

hvad enten det er sundhedspleje, investeringer,

other critical areas.

andre kritiske områder.

Yet still, many of us believe

Alligevel, mange af os tror på

that we should make all our own choices

at vi alle bør træffe vores egne valg

and seek out even more of them.

og udsøge endnu flere.

This brings me to the third,

Dette bringer mig til den tredje,

and perhaps most problematic, assumption:

og mest problematiske, formodning:

"You must never

"Man skal aldrig

say no to choice."

sige nej til valg."

To examine this, let's go back to the U.S.

For at undersøge dette, lad os tage tilbage USA

and then hop across the pond to France.

og så hoppe over dammen til Frankrig.

Right outside Chicago,

Lige uden for Chicago,

a young couple, Susan and Daniel Mitchell,

var et ungt par, Susan og Daniel Mitchell,

were about to have their first baby.

ved at få deres første barn.

They'd already picked out a name for her,

De havde allerede valgt et navn til hende,

Barbara, after her grandmother.

Barbara, efter hendes bedstemor.

One night, when Susan was seven months pregnant,

En nat, da Susan var gravid i syvende måned,

she started to experience contractions

begyndte hun at opleve veer

and was rushed to the emergency room.

og blev kørt på skadestuen i en fart.

The baby was delivered through a C-section,

Babyen blev født ved kejsersnit,

but Barbara suffered cerebral anoxia,

men Barbara led af cerebral anoksi,

a loss of oxygen to the brain.

tab af ilt til hjernen.

Unable to breathe on her own,

Ude af stand til at trække vejret selv,

she was put on a ventilator.

blev hun sat på en respirator.

Two days later,

To dage senere,

the doctors gave the Mitchells

gav lægerne Mitchellerne

a choice:

er valg:

They could either remove Barbara

De kunne enten tage Barbara

off the life support,

af respiratoren,

in which case she would die within a matter of hours,

hvilket ville betyde at hun ville dø indenfor et par timer,

or they could keep her on life support,

eller de kunne holde hende i respiratoren,

in which case she might still die

hvilket ville betyde at hun muligvis stadig ville dø

within a matter of days.

indenfor et par dage.

If she survived, she would remain

Hvis hun overlevede, ville hun forblive

in a permanent vegetative state,

i en permanent vegetativ tilstand,

never able to walk, talk

aldrig blive i stand til at gå, tale

or interact with others.

eller interagere med andre.

What do they do?

Hvad gør de?

What do any parent do?

Hvad ville hvilke som helst forældre gøre?

In a study I conducted

I et studie jeg foretog

with Simona Botti and Kristina Orfali,

med Simon Botti og Kristina Orfali,

American and French parents

amerikanske og franske forældre

were interviewed.

der blev interviewet.

They had all suffered

De havde alle måtte gennemgå

the same tragedy.

den samme tragedie.

In all cases, the life support was removed,

I alle tilfælde, blev respiratoren fjernet,

and the infants had died.

og spædbørnene var døde.

But there was a big difference.

Men der var en stor forskel.

In France, the doctors decided whether and when

I Frankrig, havde lægerne besluttet om og hvornår

the life support would be removed,

respiratoren ville blive fjernet,

while in the United States,

mens i USA,

the final decision rested with the parents.

lå den sidste beslutning hos forældrene.

We wondered:

Vi undrede os over:

does this have an effect on how the parents

om dette har en effekt på hvordan forældrene

cope with the loss of their loved one?

håndterer tabet af deres kære?

We found that it did.

Vi fandt ud af at det gjorde det.

Even up to a year later,

Selv op til et år senere,

American parents

var det mere sandsynligt at

were more likely to express negative emotions,

amerikanske forældre ville udtrykke negative følelser,

as compared to their French counterparts.

sammenlignet med deres franske modstykker.

French parents were more likely to say things like,

Der var større sandsynlighed for at de franske forældre ville sige ting som,

"Noah was here for so little time,

"Noah var her i så kort tid,

but he taught us so much.

men han lærte os så meget.

He gave us a new perspective on life."

Han gav os et nyt perspektiv på livet."

American parents were more likely to say things like,

Der var større sandsynlighed for at amerikanske forældre ville sige ting som,

"What if? What if?"

"Hvad nu hvis? Hvad nu hvis?"

Another parent complained,

En anden forælder brokkede sig,

"I feel as if they purposefully tortured me.

"Jeg har det som om de med vilje torturerede mig.

How did they get me to do that?"

Hvordan fik de mig til at gøre det?"

And another parent said,

Og en anden forælder sagde,

"I feel as if I've played a role

"Jeg har det som om jeg har spillet en rolle

in an execution."

i en henrettelse."

But when the American parents were asked

Men da de amerikanske forældre blev spurgt

if they would rather have had

om de hellere ville have haft

the doctors make the decision,

at lægerne havde taget beslutningen,

they all said, "No."

sagde de alle, "Nej."

They could not imagine

De kunne ikke forestille sig

turning that choice over to another,

at overgive det valg til en anden,

even though having made that choice

selvom at det at have taget beslutningen

made them feel trapped,

fik dem til at føle sig fanget,

guilty, angry.

skyldige, vrede.

In a number of cases

I et antal tilfælde

they were even clinically depressed.

var de endda klinisk deprimerede.

These parents could not contemplate

Disse forældre kunne ikke overveje

giving up the choice,

at opgive deres valg,

because to do so would have gone contrary

fordi at gøre det ville have gået imod

to everything they had been taught

alt de var blevet lært

and everything they had come to believe

og alt de havde lært at tro på

about the power

om den magt

and purpose of choice.

og formål med valg.

In her essay, "The White Album,"

I hendes essay, "The White Album,"

Joan Didion writes,

skriver Joan Didion,

"We tell ourselves stories

"Vi fortæller fortællinger til os selv

in order to live.

for at leve.

We interpret what we see,

Vi tolker det vi ser,

select the most workable

udvælger de mest brugbare

of the multiple choices.

af en række valg.

We live entirely by the imposition

Vi lever udelukkende af påtvingelsen

of a narrative line

af en narrativ linje

upon disparate images,

på uforenelige billeder,

by the idea with which we have learned to freeze

ved den ide som vi har lært at fryse

the shifting phantasmagoria,

de skiftende koglerier,

which is our actual experience."

som er vores virkelige oplevelse."

The story Americans tell,

Fortællingen amerikanere fortæller,

the story upon which

fortællingen som

the American dream depends,

amerikanerne er afhængige af,

is the story of limitless choice.

fortællingen om ubegrænsede valg.

This narrative

Denne fortælling

promises so much:

lover så meget:

freedom, happiness,

frihed, lykke,

success.

succes.

It lays the world at your feet and says,

Det lægger verden for ens fødder og siger,

"You can have anything, everything."

"Du kan have hvad som helst, alt."

It's a great story,

Det er en fantastisk fortælling,

and it's understandable why they would be reluctant

og det er forståeligt hvorfor de vil være tøvende

to revise it.

med at revidere det.

But when you take a close look,

Men når man kigger nærmere,

you start to see the holes,

begynder man at se hullerne,

and you start to see that the story

og man begynder at se at fortællingen

can be told in many other ways.

kan fortælles på mange andre måder.

Americans have so often tried to

Amerikanere har så ofte prøvet at

disseminate their ideas of choice,

sprede deres ideer om valg,

believing that they will be, or ought to be,

og troet at de vil blive, eller bør blive,

welcomed with open hearts and minds.

hilst velkommen med åbne hjerter og sind.

But the history books and the daily news tell us

Men historiebøgerne og de daglige nyheder fortæller os

it doesn't always work out that way.

at det ikke altid fungerer på den måde.

The phantasmagoria,

Kogleriet,

the actual experience that we try to understand

den faktiske oplevelse som vi prøver at forstå

and organize through narrative,

og organiserer gennem fortællinger,

varies from place to place.

varierer fra sted til sted.

No single narrative serves the needs

Ingen enkeltstående fortælling tjener alles behov

of everyone everywhere.

alle steder.

Moreover, Americans themselves

Derudover, kunne amerikanere selv

could benefit from incorporating

drage fordel af at inddrage

new perspectives into their own narrative,

nye perspektiver i deres egen fortælling,

which has been driving their choices

som har motiveret deres valg

for so long.

i så lang tid.

Robert Frost once said that,

Robert Frost sagde en gang, at

"It is poetry that is lost in translation."

"Det er poesi der går tabt i oversættelsen."

This suggests that

Dette foreslår at

whatever is beautiful and moving,

lige meget hvad der er smukt og bevægende,

whatever gives us a new way to see,

lige meget hvad der giver os nye måder at se på,

cannot be communicated to those

kan ikke kommunikeres til dem

who speak a different language.

der taler forskellige sprog.

But Joseph Brodsky said that,

Men Joseph Brodsky sagde at,

"It is poetry

"Det er poesi

that is gained in translation,"

der vindes i oversættelsen,"

suggesting that translation

hvilket foreslår at oversættelse

can be a creative,

kan være en kreativ,

transformative act.

transformerende handling.

When it comes to choice,

Når det kommer til valg,

we have far more to gain than to lose

har vi væsentlig mere at vinde end at tabe

by engaging in the many

ved at engagere os i de mange

translations of the narratives.

oversættelser af fortællingen.

Instead of replacing

I stedet for at erstatte

one story with another,

en fortælling med en anden,

we can learn from and revel in

kan vi lære af og slå os løs i

the many versions that exist

de mange versioner der eksisterer

and the many that have yet to be written.

og dem der stadig skal skrives.

No matter where we're from

Uanset hvor vi kommer fra

and what your narrative is,

og hvad ens fortælling er,

we all have a responsibility

har vi alle et ansvar

to open ourselves up to a wider array

for at åbne os selv for et bredere opbud

of what choice can do,

af hvad valg kan gøre,

and what it can represent.

og hvad det kan repræsentere.

And this does not lead to

Og dette leder ikke til

a paralyzing moral relativism.

en paralyserende moralsk relativisme.

Rather, it teaches us when

Derimod lærer det os hvornår

and how to act.

og hvordan vi skal handle.

It brings us that much closer

Det bringer os meget tættere

to realizing the full potential of choice,

på at forstå det fulde potentiale af valg,

to inspiring the hope

til at inspirere håbet

and achieving the freedom

og opnå friheden

that choice promises

som valg lover

but doesn't always deliver.

men ikke altid leverer.

If we learn to speak to one another,

Hvis vi lærer at tale med hinanden,

albeit through translation,

omend gennem oversættelse,

then we can begin to see choice

så kan vi begynde at se valg

in all its strangeness,

i al dens besynderlighed,

complexity

kompleksitet

and compelling beauty.

og betagende dejlighed.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Bruno Giussani: Thank you.

Bruno Giussani: Tak.

Sheena, there is a detail about your biography

Sheena, der er en detalje om din biografi

that we have not written in the program book.

som vi ikke har skrevet i programmet.

But by now it's evident to everyone in this room. You're blind.

Men nu er det klart for alle i dette lokale. Du er blind.

And I guess one of the questions on everybody's mind is:

Og jeg formoder at et af spørgsmålene som alle tænker på:

How does that influence your study of choosing

Hvordan påvirker det dit studie om valg

because that's an activity

fordi det er en aktivitet

that for most people is associated with visual inputs

der for de fleste mennesker er associeret med visuelle input

like aesthetics and color and so on?

som æstetik og farve og så videre?

Sheena Iyengar: Well, it's funny that you should ask that

Sheena Lyengar: Jamen, det er sjovt at du spørger om det

because one of the things that's interesting about being blind

fordi en af tingene der er interessant om at være blind

is you actually get a different vantage point

er at man faktisk får et andet synspunkt

when you observe the way

når man observerer måden

sighted people make choices.

som seende mennesker træffer valg.

And as you just mentioned, there's lots of choices out there

Og som du lige nævnte, er der mange valg derude

that are very visual these days.

der er meget visuelle i dag.

Yeah, I -- as you would expect --

Ja, jeg -- som man kan forestille sig --

get pretty frustrated by choices

bliver ret frustreret over valg

like what nail polish to put on

som hvilken neglelak jeg skal tage på

because I have to rely on what other people suggest.

fordi jeg skal stole på hvad andre mennesker foreslår.

And I can't decide.

Og jeg kan ikke vælge.

And so one time I was in a beauty salon,

Så engang var jeg i en skønhedssalon,

and I was trying to decide between two very light shades of pink.

og jeg prøvede at vælge mellem to meget lyse nuancer pink.

And one was called "Ballet Slippers."

Og en hed "Ballet Slippers."

And the other one was called "Adorable."

Og den anden hed "Adorable."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And so I asked these two ladies,

Så jeg spurgte de to damer,

and the one lady told me, "Well, you should definitely wear 'Ballet Slippers.'"

og den ene dame fortalte mig, "Jamen, du skal helt sikkert bruge 'Ballet Slippers.'"

"Well, what does it look like?"

"Jamen, hvordan ser den ud?"

"Well, it's a very elegant shade of pink."

"Jamen, det er en meget elegant pink nuance."

"Okay, great."

"Okay, fedt."

The other lady tells me to wear "Adorable."

Den anden dame fortæller mig at jeg skal bruge "Adorable."

"What does it look like?"

"Hvordan ser den ud?"

"It's a glamorous shade of pink."

"Det er en glamorøs pink nuance."

And so I asked them, "Well, how do I tell them apart?

Så jeg spurgte dem, "Jamen, hvordan kan jeg kende dem fra hinanden?

What's different about them?"

Hvad er forskellen på dem?"

And they said, "Well, one is elegant, the other one's glamorous."

Og de sagde, "Jamen, den ene er elegant, den anden er glamorøs."

Okay, we got that.

Okay, det fik vi.

And the only thing they had consensus on:

Den eneste anden ting de var enige om:

well, if I could see them, I would

jamen, hvis jeg kunne se dem, ville jeg

clearly be able to tell them apart.

kunne skelne dem tydeligt fra hinanden.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And what I wondered was whether they were being affected

Og det jeg undrede mig over var om de var påvirkede

by the name or the content of the color,

af navnet eller indholdet af farven,

so I decided to do a little experiment.

så jeg besluttede mig for at udføre et lille eksperiment.

So I brought these two bottles of nail polish into the laboratory,

Så jeg tog disse to flasker neglelak med til laboratoriet,

and I stripped the labels off.

og jeg tog etiketten af.

And I brought women into the laboratory,

Og jeg bragte kvinder ind i laboratoriet,

and I asked them, "Which one would you pick?"

og jeg spurgte dem, "Hvilken ville du vælge?"

50 percent of the women accused me of playing a trick,

50 procent af kvinderne gik ud fra at jeg tog dem ved næsen,

of putting the same color nail polish

og havde puttet den samme farve neglelak

in both those bottles.

i begge flasker.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

(Applause)

(Bifald)

At which point you start to wonder who the trick's really played on.

Og på det tidspunkt begynder man at undre sig over hvem der virkelig er taget ved næsen.

Now, of the women that could tell them apart,

Nuvel, af de kvinder der kunne kender forskel på dem,

when the labels were off, they picked "Adorable,"

når etiketten var taget af, valgte de "Adorable,"

and when the labels were on,

og når etiketten sad på,

they picked "Ballet Slippers."

valgte de "Ballet Slippers."

So as far as I can tell,

Så vidt jeg ved,

a rose by any other name

vil en rose med et andet navn

probably does look different

sandsynligvis se anderledes ud

and maybe even smells different.

og måske endda lugte anderledes.

BG: Thank you. Sheena Iyengar. Thank you Sheena.

BG: Tak. Sheena Lyengar. Tak Sheena.

(Applause)

(Bifald)