The paradox of choice | Barry Schwartz | TED

Translator: Kristina Mois Reviewer: Casey Roach

I'm going to talk to you about some stuff that's in this book of mine

Ma räägin teile üht-teist sellest, mis mu raamatus kirjas on,

that I hope will resonate with other things you've already heard,

ja ma loodan et see haakub teiste asjadega, mida te juba kuulnud olete,

and I'll try to make some connections myself,

ja ma katsun ise mõningasi seoseid välja tuua, juhuks kui teil need märkamata jäävad.

in case you miss them.

But I want to start with what I call the "official dogma."

Ma tahaksin alustada mõttega, mida ma nimetan "ametlikuks dogmaks".

The official dogma of what?

Mille ametlik dogma?

The official dogma of all Western industrial societies.

Kõikide lääne tööstusühiskondade ametlik dogma.

And the official dogma runs like this:

Ja see ametlik dogma kõlab nii:

if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens,

kui me tahame oma kodanike heaolu maksimumini viia,

the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom.

siis parim viis seda teha on suurendada üksikisiku vabadust äärmuseni.

The reason for this is both that freedom is, in and of itself, good,

Põhjendus on see, et vabadus on iseenesest hea,

valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human,

väärtuslik, püüdlemist väärt, inimloomusele omane.

and because if people have freedom,

Ja kui inimestel on vabadus,

then each of us can act on our own

siis võib igaüks meist ise

to do the things that will maximize our welfare,

teha seda, mis kasvatab enim meie heaolu,

and no one has to decide on our behalf.

ja keegi ei pea meie eest otsustama.

The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice.

Et vabadus oleks võimalikult suur, tuleb laiendada valikuvõimalust.

The more choice people have, the more freedom they have,

Mida rohkem valikuid inimestel on, seda vabamad nad on,

and the more freedom they have,

ning mida vabamad nad on,

the more welfare they have.

seda suurem on nende heaolu.

This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply

Minu arust on säärane mõtlemine niivõrd üldlevinud,

that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it.

et kellelgi ei tuleks pähegi seda küsimärgi alla seada.

Ja samuti on see sööbinud sügavale igapäevaellu.

And it's also deeply embedded in our lives.

I'll give you some examples

Ma toon teile mõned näited, mida kaasaegne progress meile võimaldanud on.

of what modern progress has made possible for us.

This is my supermarket.

See on minu supermarket. Mitte just eriti suur.

Not such a big one.

I want to say just a word about salad dressing.

Ma tahaksin öelda paar sõna salatikastme kohta.

A hundred seventy-five salad dressings in my supermarket,

Minu supermarketis on 175 sorti salatikastet,

if you don't count the 10 extra-virgin olive oils

kui kastmete hulka mitte lugeda 10 eri sorti esmapressitud oliiviõli

and 12 balsamic vinegars you could buy

ja 12 sorti palsamäädikat, mida sul on võimalus osta

to make a very large number of your own salad dressings,

et teha endale ise väga paljusid erinevaid salatikastmeid,

in the off-chance that none of the 175 the store has on offer suit you.

juhuks kui need 175, mida poel pakkuda on, sulle ei sobi.

So this is what the supermarket is like.

Nii et selline on supermarket.

And then you go to the consumer electronics store

Ja siis lähed sa koduelektroonika poodi, et oma stereosüsteem üles seada --

to set up a stereo system --

speakers, CD player, tape player, tuner, amplifier --

kõlarid, CD-mängija, kassetimängija, raadio, võimendi.

and in this one single consumer electronics store,

Ja selles ühes ainsas koduelektroonika poes

there are that many stereo systems.

on nii palju stereosüsteeme.

We can construct six and a half million different stereo systems

Kuus ja pool millionit erinevat stereosüsteemi on võimalik kokku panna

out of the components that are on offer in one store.

nendest komponentidest, mis selles ühes poes müügil on.

You've got to admit that's a lot of choice.

Te peate tunnistama, et see on väga suur valik.

In other domains -- the world of communications.

Võtame teise ala -- kommunikatsioon.

There was a time, when I was a boy,

Oli aeg, mil mina olin alles väikene poiss,

when you could get any kind of telephone service you wanted,

kui sa võisid võtta ükskõik millise telefoniteenuse,

as long as it came from Ma Bell.

peaasi et see tuli firmalt Ma Bell.

You rented your phone, you didn't buy it.

Telefon renditi, mitte ei ostetud.

One consequence of that, by the way, is that the phone never broke.

Selle üks tagajärg oli muide see, et telefonid ei läinud kunagi katki.

And those days are gone.

Ja need päevad on möödas.

We now have an almost unlimited variety of phones,

Nüüd on meil piiramatu valik telefone,

especially in the world of cell phones.

eriti mobiiltelefone.

These are cell phones of the future.

Need on tuleviku mobiiltelefonid.

My favorite is the middle one --

Minu lemmik on see keskmine --

the MP3 player, nose hair trimmer, and crème brûlée torch.

tal on MP3 mängija, ninakarvade trimmer ja creme brulee tõrvik.

And if --

Ja kui seda teie kohalikkudes poodides veel müügil pole,

(Laughter)

if by some chance you haven't seen that in your store yet,

you can rest assured that one day soon, you will.

siis olge rahulikud, küll ta üsna varsti ka müügile tuleb.

And what this does is it leads people to walk into their stores,

Ja mis juhtub, on see,

et inimesed tulevad poodi ja küsivad aina ühte küsimust.

asking this question.

And do you know what the answer to this question now is?

Ja kas te teate, mis selle küsimuse vastus hetkel on?

The answer is "no."

Vastus on "Ei".

It is not possible to buy a cell phone that doesn't do too much.

Ei ole võimalik osta mobiiltelefoni, millel poleks liiga palju funktsioone.

So, in other aspects of life that are much more significant than buying things,

Elu teistes aspektides, mis on tähtsamad kui asjade ostmine,

the same explosion of choice is true.

on toimunud samasugune valikute plahvatuslik kasv.

Health care.

Tervishoid -- USAs ei ole enam nii,

It is no longer the case in the United States

that you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you what to do.

et lähed arsti juurde ja arst ütleb sulle, mida teha.

Instead, you go to the doctor,

Nüüd on hoopis nii, et lähed arsti juurde,

and the doctor tells you, "Well, we could do A, or we could do B.

ja arst ütleb sulle, et noh, võime teha variandi A või variandi B.

A has these benefits and these risks.

A-l on sellised plusspooled, sellised riskid.

B has these benefits and these risks.

B-l on sellised plusspooled, sellised riskid. Kumba te soovite?

What do you want to do?"

And you say, "Doc, what should I do?"

Ja sina ütled, "Doktor, mida ma peaksin tegema?"

And the doc says, "A has these benefits and risks,

Ja doktor ütleb, et A-l on sellised plussid ja miinused, B-l selllised plussid ja miinused.

and B has these benefits and risks.

What do you want to do?"

Kumba te eelistate?

And you say, "If you were me, Doc, what would you do?"

Ja sina ütled: "Kui teie oleksite minu asemel, doktor, siis kumma te valiksite?"

And the doc says, "But I'm not you."

Ja arst ütleb: "Aga mina ei ole ju teie."

And the result is -- we call it "patient autonomy,"

Selle tulemuse nimi on "patsiendi autonoomia",

which makes it sound like a good thing,

mis kõlab nagu oleks see midagi head.

but what it really is is a shifting of the burden and the responsibility

Aga tegelikult on see koorma ja otsustusvastutuse ümbertõstmine

inimeselt, kes asjast midagi jagab --

for decision-making

from somebody who knows something -- namely, the doctor --

justnimelt arstilt --

inimesele, kes ei tea midagi, ning kes on peaaegu kindlasti haige

to somebody who knows nothing and is almost certainly sick

and thus, not in the best shape to be making decisions --

ning seega mitte kõige paremas vormis otsuste langetamiseks --

namely, the patient.

nimelt patsiendile.

There's enormous marketing of prescription drugs

Ameerikas reklaamitakse meeletult retseptiravimeid

to people like you and me,

inimestele nagu sina ja mina,

which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all,

mis, kui natuke järele mõelda, on täiesti ebaloogiline,

since we can't buy them.

sest me ei saa neid ju ilma retseptita osta.

Why do they market to us if we can't buy them?

Miks nad neid meile reklaamivad, kui me neid osta ei saa?

The answer is that they expect us to call our doctors the next morning

Vastus on selles, et nad loodavad, et me helistame kohe hommikul oma arstile

and ask for our prescriptions to be changed.

ja nõuame, et ta meile uue retsepti kirjutaks.

Something as dramatic as our identity

Millestki nii tähelepanuväärsest nagu identiteet

has now become a matter of choice,

on nüüdseks saanud valik,

as this slide is meant to indicate.

nagu see slaid on mõeldud näitama.

We don't inherit an identity; we get to invent it.

Me ei päri oma identiteeti, me saame selle ise leiutada.

And we get to reinvent ourselves as often as we like.

Me tohime ennast muuta nii tihti kui tahame.

And that means that every day, when you wake up in the morning,

See tähendab, et igal hommikul ärgates

pead sa otsustama, milline inimene sa olla tahad.

you have to decide what kind of person you want to be.

With respect to marriage and family:

Rääkides abielust ja perekonnast,

there was a time when the default assumption that almost everyone had

kunagi oli aeg, kui peaaegu kõik eeldasid,

is that you got married as soon as you could,

et sa abiellud niipea kui saad,

and then you started having kids as soon as you could.

ning seejärel hakkad lapsi saama niipea kui võimalik.

Ainus tõeline valik oli - kellega?,

The only real choice was who,

not when, and not what you did after.

mitte millal, ega mitte mida sa pärast tegid.

Nowadays, everything is very much up for grabs.

Tänapäeval on kõik variandid lahtised.

I teach wonderfully intelligent students,

Ma õpetan imeliselt tarku üliõpilasi,

and I assign 20 percent less work than I used to.

aga annan neile 20 protsenti vähem ülesandeid kui varem.

And it's not because they're less smart,

Ning seda mitte sellepärast, et nad oleksid vähem targad,

and it's not because they're less diligent.

ega mitte sellepärast, et nad oleksid vähem töökad.

It's because they are preoccupied, asking themselves,

Hoopis sellepärast, et nende aeg kulub endalt küsimise peale:

"Should I get married or not? Should I get married now?

"Kas abielluda või mitte? Kas abielluda praegu?

Should I get married later?

Kas abielluda hiljem? Kas enne lapsed või karjäär?"

Should I have kids first or a career first?"

All of these are consuming questions.

Kõik need küsimused nõuavad süvenemist.

And they're going to answer these questions,

Ja õpilased üritavad neile küsimustele vastuseid leida,

whether or not it means not doing all the work I assign

ükskõik kas neile jääb aega teha ülesandeid, mida ma neile annan,

and not getting a good grade in my courses.

või kas nad saavad minu aines hea hinde.

And indeed they should.

Ja tõepoolest, nii nad toimima peavadki. Need on tähtsad küsimused.

These are important questions to answer.

Work.

Töö -- meid on õnnistatud, nagu Carl mainis --

We are blessed, as Carl was pointing out,

with the technology that enables us to work every minute of every day

tehnoloogiaga, mis võimaldab meil

iga minut iga päev igast planeedi nurgast töötada --

from any place on the planet --

except the Randolph Hotel.

välja arvatud Randolphi hotellist.

(Laughter)

(Naermine)

(Applause)

There is one corner, by the way,

Muideks üks nurk siiski on,

that I'm not going to tell anybody about, where the WiFi actually works.

kus WiFi töötab, aga ma ei ütle kellelegi, kus.

I'm not telling you about it, because I want to use it.

Ma ei ütle, sest ma tahan seda ise kasutada.

So what this means,

Nii et see meeletu valikuvabadus töö osas tähendab,

this incredible freedom of choice we have with respect to work,

et me peame otsustama,

is that we have to make a decision,

again and again and again,

uuesti ja uuesti ja uuesti,

about whether we should or shouldn't be working.

kas me peame või ei pea antud hetkel töötama.

We can go to watch our kid play soccer,

Me võime minna oma lapse jalgpallimängu vaatama,

and we have our cell phone on one hip and our Blackberry on our other hip,

nii et mobiiltelefon ripub ühel puusal,

Blackberry ripub teisel puusal,

and our laptop, presumably, on our laps.

ja sülearvuti, eeldatavasti, on süles.

And even if they're all shut off,

Ja isegi kui nad on kõik välja lülitatud,

every minute that we're watching our kid mutilate a soccer game,

siis iga minut, kui me vaatame, kuidas meie laps jalgpalli mängida koperdab,

we are also asking ourselves,

küsime endalt ka:

"Should I answer this cell phone call?

"Kas ma peaksin selle kõne vastu võtma?

Should I respond to this email? Should I draft this letter?"

Kas ma peaksin sellele e-mailile vastama? Kas ma peaksin selle kirja mustandi valmis tegema?"

And even if the answer to the question is "no,"

Ja isegi kui vastus küsimusele on "ei",

it's certainly going to make the experience of your kid's soccer game

siis ikkagi teeb see su lapse jalgpallimängu vaatamise elamuse

very different than it would've been.

hoopis teistsuguseks, kui see oleks olnud.

So everywhere we look,

Ükskõik kuhu me ka ei vaata,

big things and small things, material things and lifestyle things,

suured asjad ja väiksed asjad, materiaalsed asjad ja elustiili asjad,

life is a matter of choice.

elu on valiku küsimus.

And the world we used to live in looked like this.

Ja maailm, kus me vanasti elasime, nägi välja selline.

[Well, actually, they are written in stone.]

That is to say, there were some choices,

See tähendab, mõned valikud küll olid,

but not everything was a matter of choice.

aga mitte kõik polnud valikuline.

The world we now live in looks like this.

Ja maailm, kus ma nüüd elame, näeb välja selline.

[The Ten Commandments Do-It-Yourself Kit]

Küsimus on, kas see on hea või halb?

And the question is: Is this good news or bad news?

And the answer is "yes."

Ning vastus on jah.

(Laughter)

(Naermine)

We all know what's good about it,

Me kõik teame, mis selles head on,

so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it.

nii et ma räägin sellest, mis selles halba on.

All of this choice has two effects,

Valikuvabadusel on kaks tagajärge,

two negative effects on people.

kaks negatiivset tagajärge inimestele.

One effect, paradoxically,

Üks tagajärg, paradoksaalsel kombel,

is that it produces paralysis rather than liberation.

on see, et see põhjustab halvatust, mitte vabanemist.

With so many options to choose from,

Kui valida on nii paljude variantite vahel,

people find it very difficult to choose at all.

siis on inimestel raske üleüldse midagi valida.

I'll give you one very dramatic example of this,

Ma toon teile üheks väga dramaatiliseks näiteks

a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans.

uuringu, kus vaadati vabatahtlike pensionikindlustuste investeeringuid.

A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard,

Ühel mu kolleegil oli ligipääs investeerimistoimikutele Vanguardis,

the gigantic mutual fund company,

see on üks hiigelsuur investeerimisfirma,

of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces.

kus olid andmed miljoni töötaja kohta umbes 2000 erinevalt töökohalt.

What she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered,

Ja ta leidis,

et iga kümne investeerimisfondi kohta, mida tööandja pakkus,

rate of participation went down two percent.

langes osalusprotsent kahe protsendi võrra.

You offer 50 funds -- 10 percent fewer employees participate

Kui pakuti 50 fondi -- 10 protsenti vähem töötajaid osales

than if you only offer five.

kui siis, kui pakuti ainult viite. Miks?

Why?

Because with 50 funds to choose from,

Sest kui valida on 50 fondi vahel,

it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose,

siis on nii neetult raske otsustada, milline fond võtta,

that you'll just put it off till tomorrow,

et sa lükkad otsustamise homseks.

and then tomorrow

Ja siis homseks, ja siis homseks.

and then tomorrow and tomorrow,

ja homseks, ja homseks,

and, of course, tomorrow never comes.

ja loomulikult homset ei tulegi.

Understand that not only does this mean

Pange tähele, et see tähendab mitte ainult seda,

that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire

et inimesed peavad pensionile jäädes koeratoitu sööma hakkama,

because they don't have enough money put away,

kuna neil ei ole piisavalt raha kõrvale pandud,

it also means that making the decision is so hard

vaid see tähendab ka seda, et otsustamine on nii raske,

that they pass up significant matching money from the employer.

et nad loobuvad suurest hulgas rahast, mida tööandja muidu nende fondi panustaks.

By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year

Mitte osaledes loobuvad nad kuni 5000 dollarist aastas,

from the employer,

mille tööandja neile muidu rõõmsalt isiklikule panusele lisaks maksaks.

who would happily match their contribution.

So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices.

Nii et halvatus on liiga rohkete valikute tagajärg.

And I think it makes the world look like this.

Ja see muudab maailma selliseks.

[And lastly, for all eternity, French, bleu cheese or ranch?]

(Naermine)

(Laughter)

You really want to get the decision right if it's for all eternity, right?

Kui miski jääb terveks igavikuks paika, siis sa tahad ju langetada õige otsuse, eks?

You don't want to pick the wrong mutual fund or wrong salad dressing.

Sa ei taha valida valet investeerimisfondi, ega isegi mitte valet salatikastet.

So that's one effect.

See on siis esimene tulemus. Teine tagajärg on see,

The second effect is that, even if we manage to overcome the paralysis

et isegi kui suudame halvatusest jagu saada ning valiku langetada,

and make a choice,

we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice

siis me oleme oma valikuga vähem rahul

than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from.

kui me oleksime siis, kui valikuvariante oleks vähem.

And there are several reasons for this.

Ning sellel on mitu põhjust.

One of them is, with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from,

Üks on see, et kui valida on nii paljude salatikastmete vahel,

if you buy one and it's not perfect -- and what salad dressing is? --

siis kui sa ühe ostad, ja see pole täiuslik -- ja noh, milline salatikaste oleks?

it's easy to imagine that you could've made a different choice

-- on lihtne ette kujutada, et sa oleksid võinud langetada mõne teise valiku,

that would've been better.

mis oleks olnud parem. Ja mis juhtub, on see,

And what happens is,

this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made,

et alternatiivide ette kujutamine paneb su oma otsust kahetsema,

and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get

ja see kahetsus vähendab su rahulolu,

out of the decision you made,

even if it was a good decision.

isegi kui see oli hea otsus.

The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all

Mida rohkem on valikuid, seda kergem on ükskõik mida kahetseda,

that is disappointing about the option that you chose.

mis sulle su valiku juures pettumust valmistab.

Second, what economists call "opportunity costs."

Teiseks asi, mida majandusteadlased nimetavad alternatiivkuluks.

Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning

Dan Gilbert esitas täna hommikul olulise mõtte,

of talking about how much the way in which we value things

kui ta rääkis, kui palju oleneb asja väärtus meie silmis sellest,

depends on what we compare them to.

millega me seda võrdleme.

Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider,

Kui kaaluda tuleb paljusid alternatiive,

it's easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject

siis on lihtne ette kujutada häid külgi

nende asjade juures, mida sa lõpuks ei vali,

that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen.

aga mille tulemusena sa oled oma valikuga pärast vähem rahul.

Here's an example.

[I can't stop thinking about those other available parking spaces on W 85th Street]

Siin on näide. Ma vabandan nende ees, kes pole New Yorkist.

If you're not a New Yorker, I apologize.

(Naermine)

Aga sa peaksid mõtlema hoopis nii.

Here's what you're supposed to be thinking.

Siin on paarike Hamptonsi kuurortis.

Here's this couple on the Hamptons. Very expensive real estate.

Väga kallis kinnisvara.

Gorgeous beach. Beautiful day. They have it all to themselves.

Fantastiline rand. Imeilus päev. Kõik on nende päralt.

What could be better?

Mis võiks veel parem olla? "No kurat,"

"Damn it," this guy is thinking,

mõtleb mees, "On august.

"It's August. Everybody in my Manhattan neighborhood is away.

Kogu mu Manhattani naabruskond on puhkusel.

I could be parking right in front of my building."

Ma saaksin praegu vabalt oma maja ees parkida."

And he spends two weeks nagged by the idea

Ja ta veedab kaks nädalat piinatuna mõttest,

that he is missing the opportunity, day after day,

et ta jääb ilma võimalusest, päev päeva järel, saada suurepärane parkimiskoht.

to have a great parking space.

(Laughter)

Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction

Alternatiivkulu vähendab meie rahulolu oma valikutega,

that we get out of what we choose,

even when what we choose is terrific.

isegi kui meie valik on suurepärane.

And the more options there are to consider,

Ja mida rohkem variante kaaluda tuleb,

the more attractive features of these options

seda rohkem nende variantide head küljed

are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.

meie alternatiivkulu kergitavad.

Here's another example.

Siin on veel üks näide.

(Laughter)

Now, this cartoon makes a lot of points.

Sellel koomiksil on mitu iva.

It makes points about living in the moment as well,

Üks iva on elada üks hetk korraga,

and probably about doing things slowly.

ja teha asju aeglaselt.

But one point it makes is that whenever you're choosing one thing,

Aga teine point on see, et millal iganes sa ühe asja valid,

you're choosing not to do other things,

jäävad sul teised asjad tegemata.

and those other things may have lots of attractive features,

Ja neil teistel asjadel võib olla mitu meeldivat omadust,

and it's going to make what you're doing

ning see teeb selle, millega sa tegeled, vähem meeldivaks.

less attractive.

Third: escalation of expectations.

Kolmandaks: ootuste kerkimine.

This hit me when I went to replace my jeans.

See jõudis mulle kohale, kui ma läksin uusi teksaseid ostma.

I wear jeans almost all the time.

Ma kannan peaaegu kogu aeg teksapükse.

There was a time when jeans came in one flavor,

Ja oli aeg, kus teksapükse oli ainult ühte sorti,

and you bought them, and they fit like crap.

ja sa ostsid nad, nad ei tahtnud sugugi istuda,

They were incredibly uncomfortable,

ja olid metsikult ebamugavad,

and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times,

ning kui sa neid piisavalt kaua kandisd ning piisavalt palju pesid,

they started to feel OK.

siis muutusid nad normaalseks.

I went to replace my jeans after years of wearing these old ones.

Ühesõnaga, ma läksin uusi teksaseid ostma, olles oma vanu teksaseid aastaid ja aastaid kandnud.

I said, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size."

ja ma ütlesin: "Teate, ma tahaksin ühte paari teksapükse, siin on mu suurus."

And the shopkeeper said,

Ja müüja ütles:

"Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit?

"Kas te soovite kitsa lõikega, lihtsa lõikega, avara lõikega?

You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed?

Tahate nööpidega või lukuga? Kas tahate kivi- või happepesu?

Do you want them distressed?

Kas te tahate rebituid?

Do you want boot cut, tapered?" Blah, blah, blah on and on he went.

Kas te tahate alt laienevaid, kitsenevaid, bla bla bla..." Ta vuristas edasi ja edasi.

My jaw dropped.

Mul kukkus suu ammuli, ja kui olin toibunud, ütlesin:

And after I recovered, I said,

"I want the kind that used to be the only kind."

"Ma tahan seda sorti, mis kunagi oli ainus sort."

(Laughter)

(Naermine)

He had no idea what that was.

Tal ei olnud õrna aimugi, milline sort see oli,

(Laughter)

nii et ma kulutasin kõiki neid neetud pükse jalga proovides mitu tundi,

So I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans,

and I walked out of the store -- truth --

ja jalutasin poest välja -- tõele au andes -- kõige paremini istuvate teksadega, mis mul kunagi olnud on.

with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had.

I did better.

Ma sain hea kauba. Tänu kõikidele nendele valikutele oli mul võimalik saada parim.

All this choice made it possible for me to do better.

But --

Aga mu enesetunne oli halvem.

I felt worse.

Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself.

Miks? Ma kirjutasin terve raamatu, et proovida seda endale seletada.

The reason is --

Põhjus, miks ma ennast halvemini tundsin, oli see,

(Laughter)

The reason I felt worse is that with all of these options available,

et kuna nii palju variante oli saadaval,

my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up.

tõusid mu ootused teksapükste suhtes kõrgemale.

I had very low, no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor.

Enne olid mul väga madalad ootused.

Mul ei olnudki mingeid erilisi ootusi, kui saada oli ainult ühte sorti.

When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect.

Kui neid oli sada sorti, siis neetud,

üks neist oleks pidanud ju täiuslik olema.

And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect.

Ja need, mis ma sain, olid küll head, aga mitte täiuslikud.

And so I compared what I got to what I expected,

Ja nii ma võrdlesin seda, mida ma sain, sellega, mida ma olin oodanud,

and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected.

ja mida ma sain oli pettumus võrreldes sellega, mida ma ootasin.

Inimestele rohkemate valikute andmine

Adding options to people's lives

can't help but increase the expectations people have

ei saa teha muud, kui kergitada inimeste ootusi

about how good those options will be.

selle suhtes, kui head need valikud on.

And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results,

Ja see tekitab väiksemat rahulolu tulemustega,

even when they're good results.

isegi kui tulemused on head.

[It all looks so great. I can't wait to be disappointed.]

Mitte keegi marketingi valdkonnas pole sellest teadlik.

Nobody in the world of marketing knows this.

Sest kui nad teaksid, siis te ei teaks, mis see kõik on.

Because if they did, you wouldn't all know what this was about.

The truth is more like this.

Tõde on pigem selline.

[Everything was better back when everything was worse.]

(Naermine)

The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse

Põhjus, miks vanasti, kui kõik halvem oli, kõik parem oli,

is that when everything was worse,

on see, et kui kõik oli halvem,

it was actually possible for people

siis oli inimestel võimalik kogeda elamusi, mis olid meeldivaks üllatuseks.

to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise.

Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens,

Tänapäeva maailmas, kus me elame -- meie ehk rikkad, industriaalsed kodanikud,

with perfection the expectation --

kes eeldavad perfektsust --

the best you can ever hope for

on parim, mida sa saad loota, et kõik asjad on ainult nii head, nagu sa lootsid.

is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be.

You will never be pleasantly surprised,

Sa pole mitte kunagi meeldivalt üllatunud,

because your expectations, my expectations,

sest su ootused, minu ootused, on kõrgel pilvedes.

have gone through the roof.

The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for --

Õnne võti -- see, mida te siia kuulma tulite --

the secret to happiness is:

õnne võti on madalad ootused.

low expectations.

(Laughter)

(Naermine)

[You'll do]

(Aplaus)

(Applause)

(Laughter)

I want to say --

Ma tahaksin öelda -- lihtsalt üks väike autobiograafiline moment --

just a little autobiographical moment --

that I actually am married to a wife,

et mul tõesti on naine, kellega me oleme abielus,

and she's really quite wonderful.

ja ta on tõesti üsna imeline.

I couldn't have done better.

Paremat poleks mul võimalik tahta. Ma ei pidanud tema puhul leppima variandiga "käib küll".

I didn't settle.

But settling isn't always such a bad thing.

Aga leppimine polegi alati halb.

Finally,

Lõpuks, üks halvastiistuvate teksaste ostmise tagajärg,

one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans

when there is only one kind to buy

kui ainult ühte sorti ongi osta,

is that when you are dissatisfied and you ask why, who's responsible,

on see, et kui sa pole rahul, siis sul pole vaja küsida - miks?

Või kes on süüdi? Vastus on niigi selge.

the answer is clear: the world is responsible.

Maailm on süüdi. Mis sul parata?

What could you do?

When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available

Kui saada on sadu erineva lõikega teksaseid,

and you buy one that is disappointing

ja sa oled pükstes, mille sa ostsid, pettunud,

and you ask why, who's responsible,

ja sa küsid, et miks ning kes on süüdi?

it is equally clear that the answer to the question is "you."

Siis on samamoodi selge, et süüdi oled sina.

You could have done better.

Sina oleksid võinud paremini valida.

With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display,

Kui riiulitel on sada erinevat sorti teksaseid,

there is no excuse for failure.

siis pole läbikukkumiseks mingit ettekäänet.

And so when people make decisions,

Nii et kui inimesed langetavad otsuseid,

and even though the results of the decisions are good,

ja isegi kui nende otsuste tulemused on head,

they feel disappointed about them;

siis tunnevad nad pettumust,

they blame themselves.

nad süüdistavad iseennast.

Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world

Kliiniline depression on tööstusriikides viimase põlvkonna jooksul plahvatuslikult kasvanud.

in the last generation.

I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor

Ma usun, et oluline -- mitte ainus, aga oluline tegur

to this explosion of depression and also suicide,

depressiooni ja ka enesetappude levikus on see,

is that people have experiences that are disappointing

et inimeste elamused valmistavad neile pidevalt pettumusi,

because their standards are so high,

sest nende standardid on nõnda kõrged.

and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves,

Ja kui nad peavad neid elamusi iseendale seletama,

they think they're at fault.

siis nad arvavad, et kõik on nende endi süü.

So the net result is that we do better in general, objectively,

Nii ongi tulemus tervikuna see, et objektiivselt läheb meil kõigil paremini,

and we feel worse.

aga me tunneme ennast halvemini.

So let me remind you:

Nii et las ma tuletan teile meelde.

this is the official dogma, the one that we all take to be true,

See ongi ametlik dogma, see mida me kõik tõeseks peame,

and it's all false.

ja see on vale. See ei kehti.

It is not true.

There's no question that some choice is better than none.

Pole kahtlustki, et mingigi valikuvabadus on parem kui valikute täielik puudumine,

But it doesn't follow from that

aga see ei tähenda, et suur hulk valikuid on parem kui väike hulk valikuid.

that more choice is better than some choice.

There's some magical amount. I don't know what it is.

On olemas mingi paras kogus valikuid. Ma ei tea, kui palju see on.

I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point

Ma olen üsna kindel, et me oleme sellest kogusest igatahes kaugel möödas,

where options improve our welfare.

kus valikuvõimaluste lisamine meie heaolu veel suurendaks.

Now, as a policy matter -- I'm almost done --

Poliitika mõttes -- ma olen peaaegu lõpetanud --

as a policy matter, the thing to think about is this:

poliitika mõttes tuleb mõelda järgmisele.

what enables all of this choice in industrial societies

Mis võimaldab kõiki neid valikuid tööstusriikides on materiaalne rikkus.

is material affluence.

There are lots of places in the world,

Maailmas on palju kohti,

and we have heard about several of them,

ja me oleme mitmest neist siin kuulnud,

where their problem is not that they have too much choice.

kus probleem pole mitte see, et neil on liiga palju valikuid.

Nende probleem on see, et neil on liiga vähe.

Their problem is they have too little.

So the stuff I'm talking about is the peculiar problem

Nii et see, millest ma räägin,

of modern, affluent, Western societies.

on kaasaegsete, rikaste, läänelike ühiskondade probleem.

And what is so frustrating and infuriating is this:

Ning masendav ja vihastav on see, kuidas

Steve Levitt talked to you yesterday

-- Steve Levitt rääkis teile eile sellest --

about how these expensive and difficult-to-install child seats

kuidas kallid ja raskestipaigaldatavad laste turvatoolid on kasutud. Nad on raha raiskamine.

don't help.

It's a waste of money.

What I'm telling you is that these expensive, complicated choices --

Mida mina teile öelda tahan, on see, et need kallid, keerulised valikud --

it's not simply that they don't help.

asi pole selles, et nad ei tee asju paremaks,

They actually hurt.

nad on lausa kahjulikud.

They actually make us worse off.

Nad tõesti teevad meie olukorra halvemaks.

If some of what enables people in our societies

Kui natukenegi sellest, mis võimaldab meie ühiskondadele kõiki neid valikuid,

to make all of the choices we make

were shifted to societies in which people have too few options,

oleks suunatud ühiskondadele, kus inimestel on liiga vähe võimalusi,

not only would those people's lives be improved,

siis paraneksid mitte ainult nende vaeste inimeste elud,

but ours would be improved also.

vaid meie omad samuti.

This is what economists call a "Pareto-improving move."

Majandusteadlased nimetavad seda Pareto-parandavaks liigutuseks.

Income redistribution will make everyone better off,

Sissetuleku ümberjagamine parandab kõikide olukorda -- mitte ainult vaeste --

not just poor people,

because of how all this excess choice plagues us.

sest kogu see valikute üleküllus on meile nuhtluseks.

So to conclude.

[You can be anything you want to be -- no limits.]

Kokkuvõtteks. Sa peaksid seda koomiksit lugema,

You're supposed to read this cartoon and, being a sophisticated person, say,

ning, olles haritud inimene, ütlema:

"Ah! What does this fish know? Nothing is possible in this fishbowl."

"Ahh! Mida üks kala ka teab?

Sa tead, et selles akvaariumis pole miski võimalik."

Impoverished imagination, a myopic view of the world --

Fantaasiavaene ettekujutus, lühinägelik maailmavaade --

that's the way I read it at first.

ja nii mõistsin seda esimesel korral minagi.

The more I thought about it, however,

Aga mida kauem ma sellele mõtlesin,

the more I came to the view that this fish knows something.

seda rohkem hakkasin ma arvama, et sellel kalal on mõnes mõttes õigus.

Because the truth of the matter is,

Sest tõde on see,

if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible,

et kui sa lõhud akvaariumi, et kõik oleks võimalik,

you don't have freedom.

You have paralysis.

siis sa pole vaba. Sa oled halvatud.

If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible,

Kui sa lõhud akvaariumi, et kõik oleks võimalik,

you decrease satisfaction.

siis sa vähendad rahulolu.

You increase paralysis, and you decrease satisfaction.

Sa suurendad halvatust, ja sa vähendad rahulolu.

Everybody needs a fishbowl.

Kõik vajavad oma akvaariumit.

This one is almost certainly too limited --

See siin on peaaegu kindlasti liiga piiratud --

perhaps even for the fish, certainly for us.

võibolla isegi kala jaoks, aga kindlasti meie jaoks.

But the absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery

Aga teatud metafoorilise akvaariumi puudumine on viletsuse,

and, I suspect, disaster.

ning, ma kahtlustan, katastroofi retsept.

Thank you very much.

Tänan teid väga.

(Applause)

(Applaus)