Why we think it's OK to cheat and steal (sometimes) | Dan Ariely

Translator: Laust Palbo Nielsen Reviewer: Louise Frilund

I want to talk to you today a little bit

I dag vil jeg fortælle jer

about predictable irrationality.

om forudsigelig irrationalitet.

And my interest in irrational behavior

Og min interesse i irrationel adfærd

started many years ago in the hospital.

startede for mange år siden på hospitalet.

I was burned very badly.

Jeg var slemt forbrændt.

And if you spend a lot of time in hospital,

Og hvis man tilbringer meget tid på hospitalet,

you'll see a lot of types of irrationalities.

vil man se mange former for irrationalitet.

And the one that particularly bothered me in the burn department

Og noget der virkelig gik mig på i afdelingen for brændsår,

was the process by which the nurses took the bandage off me.

var den måde hvorpå sygeplejerskerne tog mine forbindinger af.

Now, you must have all taken a Band-Aid off at some point,

I har formentlig alle prøvet at tage et plaster af på et tidspunkt,

and you must have wondered what's the right approach.

og I må have spekuleret på hvilken fremgangsmåde der er den rigtige.

Do you rip it off quickly -- short duration but high intensity --

River man det af hurtigt - kort varighed men høj intensitet -

or do you take your Band-Aid off slowly --

eller tager man det langsomt af -

you take a long time, but each second is not as painful --

man bruger lang tid, men hvert sekund er ikke nær så smertefuldt -

which one of those is the right approach?

hvilken af disse fremgangsmåder er den rigtige?

The nurses in my department thought that the right approach

Sygeplejerskerne på min afdeling mente, at den rette fremgangsmåde

was the ripping one, so they would grab hold and they would rip,

var den hvor man river, så de ville tage fat og de ville rive,

and they would grab hold and they would rip.

og de ville tage fat og de ville rive.

And because I had 70 percent of my body burned, it would take about an hour.

Og fordi 70 procent af min krop var forbrændt, ville det tage omkring en time.

And as you can imagine,

Og som i kan forestille jer,

I hated that moment of ripping with incredible intensity.

hadede jeg det øjeblik hvor de rev, med utrolig stor intensitet.

And I would try to reason with them and say,

Og jeg ville prøve at tale dem til fornuft og sige,

"Why don't we try something else?

"Hvorfor prøver vi ikke noget andet?

Why don't we take it a little longer --

Hvorfor bruger vi ikke lidt længere tid -

maybe two hours instead of an hour -- and have less of this intensity?"

måske to timer i stedet for en time - så denne intensitet bliver mindre?"

And the nurses told me two things.

Og sygeplejerskerne fortalte mig to ting.

They told me that they had the right model of the patient --

De sagde at de havde den rette model af patienten -

that they knew what was the right thing to do to minimize my pain --

at de vidste hvad der var den rette ting at gøre for at minimere min smerte.

and they also told me that the word patient doesn't mean

og de fortalte mig at ordet patient (tålmodig) ikke betyder

to make suggestions or to interfere or ...

at komme med forslag eller afbryde eller...

This is not just in Hebrew, by the way.

Det er ikke kun sådan på hebraisk, for øvrigt.

It's in every language I've had experience with so far.

Sådan er det på alle sprog jeg har stiftet bekendtskab med indtil videre.

And, you know, there's not much -- there wasn't much I could do,

Og der var ikke rigtig - der var ikke så meget jeg kunne gøre,

and they kept on doing what they were doing.

og de blev ved med at gøre hvad de gjorde.

And about three years later, when I left the hospital,

Og cirka tre år senere, da jeg forlod hospitalet,

I started studying at the university.

begyndte jeg at studere på universitetet.

And one of the most interesting lessons I learned

Og en af de mest interessante ting jeg lærte

was that there is an experimental method

var at der er en eksperimentel metode,

that if you have a question you can create a replica of this question

at hvis man har et spørgsmål, så kan man skabe en kopi af dette spørgsmål

in some abstract way, and you can try to examine this question,

på en abstrakt måde, og man kan så forsøge at undersøge dette spørgsmål,

maybe learn something about the world.

og måske lære lidt omkring verden.

So that's what I did.

Så det var det jeg gjorde.

I was still interested

Jeg var stadig interesseret

in this question of how do you take bandages off burn patients.

i det her spørgsmål om hvordan man tager forbindinger af patienter med brændsår.

So originally I didn't have much money,

Så, oprindeligt havde jeg ikke særligt mange penge,

so I went to a hardware store and I bought a carpenter's vice.

så jeg gik ned i en værktøjsforretning og jeg købte en skruetvinge.

And I would bring people to the lab and I would put their finger in it,

Og jeg tog folk med til laboratoriet og jeg puttede deres fingre ind i den,

and I would crunch it a little bit.

og jeg klemte dem en lille smule.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And I would crunch it for long periods and short periods,

Og jeg klemte dem i lang tid og i kort tid,

and pain that went up and pain that went down,

og smerte der steg og smerte der aftog,

and with breaks and without breaks -- all kinds of versions of pain.

og med pauser og uden pauser - alle mulige former for smerte.

And when I finished hurting people a little bit, I would ask them,

Og efter jeg havde påført folk en lille smule smerte, ville jeg spørge dem,

so, how painful was this? Or, how painful was this?

nå, hvor smertefuldt var det her? Eller, hvor smertefuldt var det her?

Or, if you had to choose between the last two,

Eller, hvis du skulle vælge mellem de sidste to,

which one would you choose?

hvilken ville du så vælge?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I kept on doing this for a while.

Jeg blev ved med at gøre dette i et stykke tid.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And then, like all good academic projects, I got more funding.

Og så, ligesom med alle andre gode akademiske projekter, fik jeg mere støtte.

I moved to sounds, electrical shocks --

Jeg gik over til lyde, elektrochok -

I even had a pain suit that I could get people to feel much more pain.

Jeg havde tilmed en smertedragt som kunne få folk til at føle meget mere smerte.

But at the end of this process,

Men til sidst i denne proces,

what I learned was that the nurses were wrong.

var det jeg lærte, at sygeplejerskerne tog fejl.

Here were wonderful people with good intentions

Her var disse vidunderlige mennesker med gode intentioner

and plenty of experience, and nevertheless

og med masser af erfaring, og alligevel

they were getting things wrong predictably all the time.

tog de fejl forudsigeligt hele tiden.

It turns out that because we don't encode duration

Det viser sig, at fordi vi ikke tager højde for varighed

in the way that we encode intensity,

på samme måde som vi tager højde for intensitet,

I would have had less pain if the duration would have been longer

ville jeg have været i mindre smerte hvis varigheden havde været længere

and the intensity was lower.

og intensiteten havde været mindre.

It turns out it would have been better to start with my face,

Det viser sig, at det ville have været bedre at starte med mit ansigt,

which was much more painful, and move toward my legs,

hvilket var meget mere smertefuldt, og arbejde sig ned mod mine ben,

giving me a trend of improvement over time --

hvilket ville give mig en følelse af forbedring som tiden gik -

that would have been also less painful.

hvilket også ville have været mindre smertefuldt.

And it also turns out that it would have been good

Og det viser sig også, at det ville have været en god idé

to give me breaks in the middle to kind of recuperate from the pain.

at give mig pauser midt i, så jeg kunne komme mig ovenpå smerterne.

All of these would have been great things to do,

Alle disse ting havde været gode ting at gøre,

and my nurses had no idea.

og mine sygeplejersker havde ingen anelse.

And from that point on I started thinking,

Og fra det øjeblik begyndte jeg at tænke,

are the nurses the only people in the world who get things wrong

er sygeplejerskerne de eneste i verden der tager fejl

in this particular decision, or is it a more general case?

i lige netop denne beslutning, eller er det mere generelt?

And it turns out it's a more general case --

Og det viser sig at det er mere generelt -

there's a lot of mistakes we do.

der er mange fejl vi begår.

And I want to give you one example of one of these irrationalities,

Og jeg vil give jer et eksempel på en af disse irrationaliteter,

and I want to talk to you about cheating.

og jeg vil fortælle jer om at snyde.

And the reason I picked cheating is because it's interesting,

Og grunden til at jeg valgte snyd er fordi det er interessant,

but also it tells us something, I think,

men også fordi det fortæller os noget, synes jeg,

about the stock market situation we're in.

om situationen vi er i på aktiemarkedet.

So, my interest in cheating started

Nå men, min interesse for snyd begyndte

when Enron came on the scene, exploded all of a sudden,

da Enron kom på banen, eksploderede pludseligt,

and I started thinking about what is happening here.

og jeg begyndte at overveje hvad der foregik her.

Is it the case that there was kind of

Forholder det sig sådan, at der var en slags

a few apples who are capable of doing these things,

dårlige elementer der var i stand til at gøre den slags ting,

or are we talking a more endemic situation,

eller er der tale om en mere endemisk situation,

that many people are actually capable of behaving this way?

at mange mennesker er i stand til at opføre sig sådan?

So, like we usually do, I decided to do a simple experiment.

Så vi gjorde hvad vi som regel gør, jeg besluttede mig for at lave et simpelt eksperiment.

And here's how it went.

Og det forgik sådan her.

If you were in the experiment, I would pass you a sheet of paper

Hvis I var med i eksperimentet, ville jeg give jer et stykke papir

with 20 simple math problems that everybody could solve,

med 20 simple regnestykker som alle og enhver kunne løse,

but I wouldn't give you enough time.

men jeg ville ikke give jer nok tid.

When the five minutes were over, I would say,

Da de 5 minutter var ovre, ville jeg sige,

"Pass me the sheets of paper, and I'll pay you a dollar per question."

"Giv mig papirene og så giver jeg jer en dollar per spørgsmål."

People did this. I would pay people four dollars for their task --

Folk gjorde dette. Jeg betalte fire dollar for deres opgave -

on average people would solve four problems.

folk ville i gennemsnit løse fire stykker.

Other people I would tempt to cheat.

Andre folk ville jeg friste med at snyde.

I would pass their sheet of paper.

Jeg ville sende papirene rundt.

When the five minutes were over, I would say,

Når de fem minutter var overstået ville jeg sige,

"Please shred the piece of paper.

"Vær så venlig at rive papirene i stykker.

Put the little pieces in your pocket or in your backpack,

Put de små stykker i jeres lomme eller taske,

and tell me how many questions you got correctly."

og fortæl mig hvor mange spørgsmål I fik rigtige."

People now solved seven questions on average.

Folk "løste" nu syv spørgsmål i gennemsnit.

Now, it wasn't as if there was a few bad apples --

Og nu var det altså ikke sådan at der var enkelte dårlige elementer -

a few people cheated a lot.

enkelte der snød meget.

Instead, what we saw is a lot of people who cheat a little bit.

I stedet var det vi så, at mange snyder en lille smule.

Now, in economic theory,

Ifølge økonomisk teori,

cheating is a very simple cost-benefit analysis.

er snyderi en ganske simpel cost-benefit analyse.

You say, what's the probability of being caught?

Man spørger sig selv, "hvad er sandsynligheden for at blive opdaget?

How much do I stand to gain from cheating?

Hvor meget får jeg ud af at snyde?

And how much punishment would I get if I get caught?

Og hvor stor er straffen hvis jeg bliver opdaget?"

And you weigh these options out --

Og man vejer disse muligheder op imod hinanden -

you do the simple cost-benefit analysis,

man laver den simple cost-benefit analyse,

and you decide whether it's worthwhile to commit the crime or not.

og man beslutter hvorvidt det kan betale sig at bryde loven eller ej.

So, we try to test this.

Så det forsøger vi at afprøve.

For some people, we varied how much money they could get away with --

For nogle folk ændrede vi på hvor mange penge de kunne slippe afsted med -

how much money they could steal.

hvor mange penge de kunne stjæle.

We paid them 10 cents per correct question, 50 cents,

Vi betalte dem 10 cents per korrekt svar, 50 cents,

a dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars per correct question.

en dollar, fem dollars, 10 dollars per korrekt svar.

You would expect that as the amount of money on the table increases,

Man ville forvente at efterhånden som mængden af af penge på bordet stiger,

people would cheat more, but in fact it wasn't the case.

ville folk snyde mere, men det var rent faktisk ikke tilfældet.

We got a lot of people cheating by stealing by a little bit.

Vi fik mange til at snyde ved at stjæle en lille smule.

What about the probability of being caught?

Hvad med sandsynligheden for at blive opdaget?

Some people shredded half the sheet of paper,

Nogle folk rev halvdelen af papiret i stykker,

so there was some evidence left.

så der var en smule bevis tilbage.

Some people shredded the whole sheet of paper.

Nogle folk rev hele papiret i stykker.

Some people shredded everything, went out of the room,

Nogle folk rev det hele i stykker, gik ud af lokalet,

and paid themselves from the bowl of money that had over 100 dollars.

og betalte sig selv ved hjælp af den skål med penge der indeholdt over 100 dollars.

You would expect that as the probability of being caught goes down,

Man skulle tro, at efterhånden som sandsynlighed for at blive opdaget bliver mindre,

people would cheat more, but again, this was not the case.

ville folk snyde mere, men igen, det var ikke tilfældet.

Again, a lot of people cheated by just by a little bit,

Igen var der mange der kun snød en lille smule,

and they were insensitive to these economic incentives.

og de var ligeglade med disse økonomiske incitamenter.

So we said, "If people are not sensitive

Så vi sagde, "Hvis folk er ligeglade

to the economic rational theory explanations, to these forces,

med de økonomisk rationelle teori forklaringer, med disse kræfter,

what could be going on?"

hvad kunne der så være på færde?"

And we thought maybe what is happening is that there are two forces.

Og vi tænkte at det der måske skete var, at der er to kræfter på spil.

At one hand, we all want to look at ourselves in the mirror

På den ene side vil vi alle gerne kunne se os selv i spejlet

and feel good about ourselves, so we don't want to cheat.

og have det godt med os selv, så vi vil ikke snyde.

On the other hand, we can cheat a little bit,

På den anden side kan vi snyde en lille smule,

and still feel good about ourselves.

og stadig have det godt med os selv.

So, maybe what is happening is that

Så det der måske sker,

there's a level of cheating we can't go over,

er at der er en grænse for snyd som vi ikke kan overskride,

but we can still benefit from cheating at a low degree,

men vi kan stadig få noget ud af at snyde en lille smule,

as long as it doesn't change our impressions about ourselves.

så længe det bare ikke ændrer på vores opfattelse af os selv.

We call this like a personal fudge factor.

Det er hvad vi kalder en personlig fuskefaktor.

Now, how would you test a personal fudge factor?

Så hvordan kan man teste en personlig fuskefaktor?

Initially we said, what can we do to shrink the fudge factor?

Til at starte med sagde vi, "Hvad kan vi gøre for at formindske fuskefaktoren?"

So, we got people to the lab, and we said,

Så vi fik folk til laboratoriet og vi sagde,

"We have two tasks for you today."

"Vi har to opgaver til dig i dag."

First, we asked half the people

Først bad vi halvdelen af folkene

to recall either 10 books they read in high school,

om enten at huske 10 bøger de havde læst på gymnasiet,

or to recall The Ten Commandments,

eller at huske de ti bud,

and then we tempted them with cheating.

og så fristede vi dem til at snyde.

Turns out the people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments --

Det viser sig, at med dem som prøvede at huske de ti bud -

and in our sample nobody could recall all of The Ten Commandments --

og i vores samling af folk var der ingen der kunne huske alle de ti bud -

but those people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments,

men de folk der prøvede at huske de ti bud,

given the opportunity to cheat, did not cheat at all.

når de fik muligheden for at snyde, snød de overhovedet ikke.

It wasn't that the more religious people --

Det var ikke sådan at de mere religiøse folk -

the people who remembered more of the Commandments -- cheated less,

altså dem der huskede flere af de ti bud - snød mindre,

and the less religious people --

og de mindre religiøse -

the people who couldn't remember almost any Commandments --

dem der stort set ikke kunne huske nogen af de ti bud -

cheated more.

snød mere.

The moment people thought about trying to recall The Ten Commandments,

Så snart folk prøvede at huske de ti bud,

they stopped cheating.

holdt de op med at snyde.

In fact, even when we gave self-declared atheists

Faktisk, selv når vi fik selvproklamerede ateister

the task of swearing on the Bible and we give them a chance to cheat,

til at sværge på biblen og vi gav dem chancen for at snyde,

they don't cheat at all.

snød de overhovedet ikke.

Now, Ten Commandments is something that is hard

Nå men, de ti bud er noget der er svært

to bring into the education system, so we said,

at bringe ind i uddannelsessystemet, så vi sagde,

"Why don't we get people to sign the honor code?"

"Hvorfor får vi ikke folk til at underskrive æreskodekset?"

So, we got people to sign,

Så vi fik folk til at skrive under på,

"I understand that this short survey falls under the MIT Honor Code."

"Jeg forstår at dette spørgeskema henholder sig til MITs æreskodeks"

Then they shredded it. No cheating whatsoever.

Derefter rev de det i stykker. Ingen snyd overhovedet.

And this is particularly interesting,

Og dette er især interessant,

because MIT doesn't have an honor code.

fordi MIT slet ikke har noget æreskodeks.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

So, all this was about decreasing the fudge factor.

Så alt dette handlede om at sætte fuskefaktoren ned.

What about increasing the fudge factor?

Hvad med at sætte fuskefaktoren op?

The first experiment -- I walked around MIT

Det første eksperiment - jeg gik rundt på MIT

and I distributed six-packs of Cokes in the refrigerators --

og jeg fordelte six-packs af colaer i køleskabene -

these were common refrigerators for the undergrads.

disse var de studerendes fælles-køleskabe.

And I came back to measure what we technically call

Og jeg kom tilbage for at måle hvad vi teknisk set kalder

the half-lifetime of Coke -- how long does it last in the refrigerators?

colaens halveringstid - hvor lang tid overlever den i køleskabet?

As you can expect it doesn't last very long; people take it.

Som man kan forvente overlever den ikke særligt længe. Folk tager den.

In contrast, I took a plate with six one-dollar bills,

Til kontrast tog jeg en tallerken med seks en-dollar sedler,

and I left those plates in the same refrigerators.

og jeg stillede disse tallerkener i køleskabene.

No bill ever disappeared.

Ingen seddel forsvandt nogensinde.

Now, this is not a good social science experiment,

Men det her er ikke noget godt videnskabeligt social eksperiment,

so to do it better I did the same experiment

så for at gøre det bedre lavede jeg det samme eksperiment

as I described to you before.

som jeg beskrev for jer før.

A third of the people we passed the sheet, they gave it back to us.

En tredjedel af de folk vi havde sendt papiret rundt til, gav det tilbage til os.

A third of the people we passed it to, they shredded it,

En tredjedel af de folk vi havde sendt det rundt til, rev det itu,

they came to us and said,

de kom til os og sagde,

"Mr. Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X dollars."

"Hr. Eksperimentator, jeg løste X problemer. Giv mig X dollars."

A third of the people, when they finished shredding the piece of paper,

En tredjedel af folkene, når de var færdige med at rive papiret itu,

they came to us and said,

kom op til os og sagde,

"Mr Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X tokens."

Hr. Eksperimentator, jeg løste X problemer. Giv mig X poletter."

We did not pay them with dollars; we paid them with something else.

Vi betalte dem ikke med dollars. Vi betalte dem med noget andet.

And then they took the something else, they walked 12 feet to the side,

Og så tog de deres noget andet, gik 4 meter til siden,

and exchanged it for dollars.

og vekslede dem til dollars.

Think about the following intuition.

Overvej den følgende intuition.

How bad would you feel about taking a pencil from work home,

Hvor dårligt vil du have det med at tage en blyant med hjem fra arbejdet,

compared to how bad would you feel

i forhold til hvor dårligt du vil have det

about taking 10 cents from a petty cash box?

med at tage 10 cents fra en 'petty cash' boks?

These things feel very differently.

Disse ting føles meget forskelligt.

Would being a step removed from cash for a few seconds

Ville det, at være et lille skridt fjernet fra kontanter i et par sekunder

by being paid by token make a difference?

ved at blive betalt med poletter, gøre en forskel?

Our subjects doubled their cheating.

Vores testpersoner fordoblede deres snyderi.

I'll tell you what I think

Jeg skal fortæller jer hvad jeg tror

about this and the stock market in a minute.

om dette og om aktiemarkedet om lidt.

But this did not solve the big problem I had with Enron yet,

Men dette løste ikke det store problem jeg havde med Enron endnu,

because in Enron, there's also a social element.

fordi i Enron er der også en social faktor.

People see each other behaving.

Folk ser hvordan hinanden opfører sig.

In fact, every day when we open the news

Faktisk, hver dag når vi ser nyhederne

we see examples of people cheating.

ser vi eksempler på folk der snyder.

What does this cause us?

Hvad gør det ved os?

So, we did another experiment.

Så vi lavede et andet eksperiment.

We got a big group of students to be in the experiment,

Vi fik en stor gruppe af studerende med i eksperimentet,

and we prepaid them.

og vi betalte dem på forhånd.

So everybody got an envelope with all the money for the experiment,

Så alle fik en konvolut med alle pengene for eksperimentet,

and we told them that at the end, we asked them

og vi fortalte dem, at til slut ville vi bede dem

to pay us back the money they didn't make. OK?

om at betale os de penge tilbage som de ikke tjente. OK?

The same thing happens.

Det samme sker.

When we give people the opportunity to cheat, they cheat.

Når vi giver folk muligheden for at snyde, snyder de.

They cheat just by a little bit, all the same.

De snyder en lille smule, men de snyder.

But in this experiment we also hired an acting student.

Men til dette eksperiment hyrede vi også en skuespiller-elev.

This acting student stood up after 30 seconds, and said,

Denne elev rejste sig efter 30 sekunder og sagde,

"I solved everything. What do I do now?"

"Jeg har løst det hele. Hvad gør jeg nu?"

And the experimenter said, "If you've finished everything, go home.

Og eksperimentatoren sagde, "Hvis du er færdig med det hele, så gå hjem."

That's it. The task is finished."

Det var det. Opgaven var færdig.

So, now we had a student -- an acting student --

Så nu har vi en studerende - en skuespiller-elev -

that was a part of the group.

der var en del af en gruppe.

Nobody knew it was an actor.

Ingen vidste at det var en skuespiller.

And they clearly cheated in a very, very serious way.

Og de snød åbenlyst på en meget, meget alvorlig måde.

What would happen to the other people in the group?

Hvad ville der ske med de andre folk i gruppen?

Will they cheat more, or will they cheat less?

Ville de snyde mere, eller ville de snyde mindre?

Here is what happens.

Her er hvad der sker.

It turns out it depends on what kind of sweatshirt they're wearing.

Det viser sig, at det kommer an på hvilken trøje de har på.

Here is the thing.

Her er fidusen.

We ran this at Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh.

Vi gjorde dette på Carnegie Mellon og Pittsburgh.

And at Pittsburgh there are two big universities,

Og på Pittsburgh er der to store universiteter,

Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh.

Carnegie Mellon og University of Pittsburgh.

All of the subjects sitting in the experiment

Alle der deltog i eksperimentet

were Carnegie Mellon students.

studerede ved Carnegie Mellon.

When the actor who was getting up was a Carnegie Mellon student --

Når skuespilleren der rejste sig var fra Carnegie Mellon -

he was actually a Carnegie Mellon student --

han var rent faktisk fra Carnegie Mellon -

but he was a part of their group, cheating went up.

men han var en del af deres gruppe, steg snyderiet.

But when he actually had a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt,

Men når han bar en University of Pittsburgh trøje,

cheating went down.

faldt snyderiet.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now, this is important, because remember,

Se, det her er vigtigt, for husk på,

when the moment the student stood up,

det øjeblik den studerende rejste sig,

it made it clear to everybody that they could get away with cheating,

stod det klart for alle at de kunne slippe afsted med at snyde,

because the experimenter said,

fordi eksperimentatoren sagde,

"You've finished everything. Go home," and they went with the money.

"Du er færdig med det hele. Gå hjem," og de gik med pengene.

So it wasn't so much about the probability of being caught again.

Så det handlede ikke så meget om sandsynligheden for at blive opdaget.

It was about the norms for cheating.

Det handlede om normerne for snyderi.

If somebody from our in-group cheats and we see them cheating,

Hvis nogen fra vores egen gruppe snyder og vi ser dem snyde,

we feel it's more appropriate, as a group, to behave this way.

føler vi at det er mere i orden, i gruppen, at opføre os sådan.

But if it's somebody from another group, these terrible people --

Men hvis nogen fra en anden gruppe, de dårlige mennesker -

I mean, not terrible in this --

jeg mener, ikke dårlige her -

but somebody we don't want to associate ourselves with,

men nogen som vi ikke selv vil associeres med,

from another university, another group,

fra et andet universitet, en anden gruppe,

all of a sudden people's awareness of honesty goes up --

pludselig stiger folks bevidsthed om ærlighed -

a little bit like The Ten Commandments experiment --

lidt ligesom med de ti bud eksperimentet -

and people cheat even less.

og folk snyder meget mindre.

So, what have we learned from this about cheating?

Så hvad har vi lært fra dette om snyderi?

We've learned that a lot of people can cheat.

Vi har lært at mange mennesker kan snyde.

They cheat just by a little bit.

De snyder bare en lille smule.

When we remind people about their morality, they cheat less.

Når vi minder folk om deres moralbegreber, snyder de mindre.

When we get bigger distance from cheating,

Når vi får større distance til snyd,

from the object of money, for example, people cheat more.

fra penge som et objekt, for eksempel, snyder folk mere.

And when we see cheating around us,

Og når vi ser snyderi omkring os,

particularly if it's a part of our in-group, cheating goes up.

især hvis det er en del af vores egen gruppe, går snyderiet op.

Now, if we think about this in terms of the stock market,

Så hvis vi tænker over dette i forbindelse med aktiemarkedet,

think about what happens.

overvej hvad der sker.

What happens in a situation when you create something

Hvad sker der i en situation når man skaber noget

where you pay people a lot of money

hvor folk betaler en masse penge

to see reality in a slightly distorted way?

for at se virkeligheden i en lettere fordrejet version?

Would they not be able to see it this way?

Ville de ikke være i stand til at se det sådan?

Of course they would.

Selvfølgelig ville de det.

What happens when you do other things,

Hvad sker der når man gør andre ting,

like you remove things from money?

såsom at fjerne ting fra penge?

You call them stock, or stock options, derivatives,

Man kalder dem aktier, aktieoptioner, derivater,

mortgage-backed securities.

mortgage-backed securities.

Could it be that with those more distant things,

Kunne det tænkes at med sådanne mere distancerede ting,

it's not a token for one second,

det er ikke en polet et øjeblik,

it's something that is many steps removed from money

det er noget der er mange skridt væk fra penge

for a much longer time -- could it be that people will cheat even more?

i meget længere tid - kunne det tænkes at folk ville snyde mere?

And what happens to the social environment

Og hvad sker der med det sociale miljø

when people see other people behave around them?

når folk ser hvordan andre folk opfører sig omkring dem?

I think all of those forces worked in a very bad way

Jeg tror at alle disse faktorer fungerer meget negativt

in the stock market.

på aktiemarkedet.

More generally, I want to tell you something

Mere generelt vil jeg gerne fortælle jer noget

about behavioral economics.

om adfærdsmæssig økonomi.

We have many intuitions in our life,

Vi har mange intuitioner i vores liv,

and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong.

og pointen er at mange af disse intuitioner er forkerte.

The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?

Spørgsmålet er om vi vil afprøve disse intuitioner?

We can think about how we're going to test this intuition

Vi kan tænke over hvordan vi vil afprøve denne intuition

in our private life, in our business life,

i vores privatliv, i vores arbejdsliv,

and most particularly when it goes to policy,

og mest af alt, når det drejer sig om politik,

when we think about things like No Child Left Behind,

når vi tænker på ting som No Child Left Behind,

when you create new stock markets, when you create other policies --

når man skaber nye aktiemarkeder, når man skaber andre regler -

taxation, health care and so on.

skat, sygesikring og så videre.

And the difficulty of testing our intuition

Og det svære ved at teste vores intuition

was the big lesson I learned

var det jeg virkeligt lærte

when I went back to the nurses to talk to them.

da jeg tog tilbage til sygeplejerskerne for at tale med dem.

So I went back to talk to them

Så jeg tog tilbage for at tale med dem

and tell them what I found out about removing bandages.

og fortælle dem hvad jeg havde fundet ud af om at fjerne forbindinger.

And I learned two interesting things.

Og jeg lærte to interessante ting.

One was that my favorite nurse, Ettie,

Den ene var at min yndlingssygeplejerske, Ettie,

told me that I did not take her pain into consideration.

fortalte mig at jeg ikke overvejede hendes smerte.

She said, "Of course, you know, it was very painful for you.

Hun sagde, "Det var selvfølgelig meget smertefuldt for dig.

But think about me as a nurse,

Men tænk på mig som en sygeplejerske,

taking, removing the bandages of somebody I liked,

der tager, fjerner forbindingerne på en jeg syntes om,

and had to do it repeatedly over a long period of time.

og som jeg skulle gøre om og om igen over lang tid.

Creating so much torture was not something that was good for me, too."

At skabe så meget tortur var ikke noget der var godt for mig heller."

And she said maybe part of the reason was it was difficult for her.

Og hun sagde, måske delvist fordi det var så svært for hende.

But it was actually more interesting than that, because she said,

Men det var faktisk mere interessant end det, fordi hun sagde,

"I did not think that your intuition was right.

"Jeg troede ikke at din intuiton var rigtig.

I felt my intuition was correct."

Jeg følte at min intuition var korrekt."

So, if you think about all of your intuitions,

Så hvis man tænker over alle sine intuitioner,

it's very hard to believe that your intuition is wrong.

er det meget svært at forestille sig at ens intuition er forkert.

And she said, "Given the fact that I thought my intuition was right ..." --

Og hun sagde, "Ud fra det faktum at jeg troede at min intuition var rigtig..." -

she thought her intuition was right --

hun troede at hendes intuition var rigtig -

it was very difficult for her to accept doing a difficult experiment

var det meget svært for hende at acceptere at afprøve et vanskeligt eksperiment

to try and check whether she was wrong.

for at se om hun tog fejl.

But in fact, this is the situation we're all in all the time.

Men det er jo faktisk den situation vi er i hele tiden.

We have very strong intuitions about all kinds of things --

Vi har stærke intuitioner, omkring alle mulige ting -

our own ability, how the economy works,

vores egne evner, hvordan økonomien er skruet sammen,

how we should pay school teachers.

hvordan vi bør betale skolelærere.

But unless we start testing those intuitions,

Men med mindre vi begynder at afprøve vores intuitioner,

we're not going to do better.

vil vi ikke blive bedre.

And just think about how better my life would have been

Og forestil jer hvor meget bedre mit liv kunne have været

if these nurses would have been willing to check their intuition,

hvis disse sygeplejersker havde været villige til at afprøve deres intuition,

and how everything would have been better

og hvordan alt havde været bedre

if we just start doing more systematic experimentation of our intuitions.

hvis vi bare begynder at lave mere systematiske eksperimenter af vores intuitioner.

Thank you very much.

Mange tak skal I have.