The art of choosing | Sheena Iyengar | TED

Translator: Kaur Sinissaar Reviewer: Triin Sinissaar

Today, I'm going to take you

Täna viin ma teid

around the world in 18 minutes.

18 minutiga ümber maailma.

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

Ma tegutsen peamiselt USAs,

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

kuid alustame kaardi teisest servast,

in Kyoto, Japan,

Kyotost, Jaapanist,

where I was living with a Japanese family

kus ma elasin ühes jaapani perekonnas,

while I was doing part of my dissertational research

kui tegin seal väitekirja jaoks uurimistööd

15 years ago.

15 aastat tagasi.

I knew even then that I would encounter

Ma teadsin juba ette, et pean seisma silmitsi

cultural differences and misunderstandings,

kultuuriliste erinevuste ja arusaamatustega,

but they popped up when I least expected it.

kuid need tekkisid siis, kui ma seda kõige vähem ootasin.

On my first day,

Esimesel päeval

I went to a restaurant,

läksin restorani

and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar.

ja tellisin tassi rohelist teed suhkruga.

After a pause, the waiter said,

Kelner tegi väikese pausi ja ütles:

"One does not put sugar in green tea."

"Rohelise tee sisse ei panda suhkrut."

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

"Ma tean," vastasin. "Tunnen seda kommet.

But I really like my tea sweet."

Kuid mulle tõesti meeldib magus tee."

In response, he gave me an even more courteous version

Vastuseks sain veelgi aupaklikuma variandi

of the same explanation.

samast seletusest.

"One does not put sugar

"Rohelise tee sisse

in green tea."

ei panda suhkrut."

"I understand," I said,

"Ma saan aru," ütlesin,

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

"et jaapanlased ei pane rohelise tee sisse suhkrut.

but I'd like to put some sugar

Kuid mina sooviksin panna suhkrut

in my green tea."

oma rohelise tee sisse."

(Laughter)

(Naer)

Surprised by my insistence,

Minu nõudlikkus üllatas kelnerit

the waiter took up the issue with the manager.

ja ta läks küsimust juhatajaga arutama.

Pretty soon,

Varsti järgnes

a lengthy discussion ensued,

pikk arutelu,

and finally the manager came over to me and said,

viimaks tuli juhataja minu juurde ja ütles:

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

"Ma väga vabandan. Meil ei ole suhkrut."

(Laughter)

(Naer)

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

Kuna ma ei saanud tellida teed nii, nagu soovisin,

I ordered a cup of coffee,

siis tellisin tassi kohvi,

which the waiter brought over promptly.

mille kelner ka viivitamata lauda tõi.

Resting on the saucer

Alustassile oli asetatud

were two packets of sugar.

kaks pakikest suhkruga.

My failure to procure myself

See, et mul ei õnnestunud hankida

a cup of sweet, green tea

tassikest magusat rohelist teed,

was not due to a simple misunderstanding.

ei olnud mitte lihtne arusaamatus.

This was due to a fundamental difference

Selle taga oli fundamentaalne erinevus

in our ideas about choice.

meie arusaamade vahel valikute tegemisest.

From my American perspective,

Minu, ameeriklase vaatenurgast,

when a paying customer makes a reasonable request

kui klient, kes maksab, esitab mõistliku soovi,

based on her preferences,

sest tema maitse on niisugune,

she has every right to have that request met.

siis on tal igati õigus oodata, et soov täidetakse.

The American way, to quote Burger King,

Ameerika komme, kui tsiteerida Burger Kingi,

is to "have it your way,"

on "võtta see nii, nagu sulle meeldib,"

because, as Starbucks says,

sest, nagu ütleb Starbucks,

"happiness is in your choices."

"õnn on sinu valikutes."

(Laughter)

(Naer)

But from the Japanese perspective,

Kuid jaapanlase vaatenurgast

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

on nende kohus kaitsta neid, kes ei tea, mis on õige -

(Laughter)

(Naer)

in this case, the ignorant gaijin --

antud juhul siis rumalat välismaalast -

from making the wrong choice.

tegemast vale otsust.

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

Otsesõnu: see, kuidas ma oma teed soovisin,

was inappropriate according to cultural standards,

oli nende kultuuri reeglite järgi sobimatu

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

ja nad andsid parima, et päästa mind piinlikust olukorrast.

Americans tend to believe

Ameeriklased kipuvad uskuma,

that they've reached some sort of pinnacle

et nad on jõudnud tippu

in the way they practice choice.

selles, kuidas nad valikuid teevad.

They think that choice, as seen through the American lens

Nad usuvad, et see, kuidas ameeriklased valikuid näevad,

best fulfills an innate and universal

täidab parimal moel kõigi inimeste

desire for choice in all humans.

kaasasündinud, universaalset janu valikute järele.

Unfortunately,

Kahjuks rajaneb

these beliefs are based on assumptions

see usk oletustel,

that don't always hold true

mis ei pea sugugi paika

in many countries, in many cultures.

paljudes riikides, paljudes kultuurides.

At times they don't even hold true

Vahetevahel ei pea need paika

at America's own borders.

isegi Ameerika piires.

I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions

Tahaksin arutleda mõnede üle neist oletustest

and the problems associated with them.

ja nendega seonduvate probleemide üle.

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

Ma loodan, et selle käigus hakkate te

about some of your own assumptions

mõtlema ka mõnede enda oletuste üle

and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.

ja selle üle, kuidas teie taust neid mõjutanud on.

First assumption:

Esimene oletus:

if a choice affects you,

kui mingi valik teid mõjutab,

then you should be the one to make it.

siis peaksite teie olema see, kes valiku langetab.

This is the only way to ensure

See on ainus viis kindlustada,

that your preferences and interests

et teie eelistusi ja huve

will be most fully accounted for.

on täielikult arvesse võetud.

It is essential for success.

See on eduks hädavajalik.

In America, the primary locus of choice

Ameerikas on valikute keskmes

is the individual.

üksikisik.

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

Inimesed peavad ise enda eest valima, vahel ka kangekaelselt,

regardless of what other people want or recommend.

hoolimata sellest, mida teised tahavad või soovitavad.

It's called "being true to yourself."

Seda nimetatakse "endale truuks jäämiseks".

But do all individuals benefit

Kuid kas selline suhtumine valikute tegemisse

from taking such an approach to choice?

on ikka kõigile inimestele kasulik?

Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies

Tegime koos Mark Lipperiga rea uuringuid,

in which we sought the answer to this very question.

kus otsisime vastust just sellele küsimusele.

In one study,

Ühes uuringus,

which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco,

mille viisime läbi San Fransisco jaapani linnaosas,

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

tõime laborisse angloameerika ja aasia-ameerika päritolu

into the laboratory,

seitsme- kuni üheksa-aastased lapsed

and we divided them up into three groups.

ning jagasime nad kolme gruppi.

The first group came in,

Esimene grupp tuli sisse

and they were greeted by Miss Smith,

ja neid võttis vastu preili Smith,

who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles.

kes näitas neile kuut suurt kuhja anagrammi-mõistatusi.

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

Lapsed said ise valida, millist anagrammide kuhja nad lahendada tahavad.

and they even got to choose which marker

Ja nad said ka valida, millise viltpliiatsiga

they would write their answers with.

nad oma vastuseid soovivad kirja panna.

When the second group of children came in,

Kui tuli sisse teine grupp lapsi,

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

siis juhatati nad samasse ruumi ja näidati samu anagramme,

but this time Miss Smith told them

kuid seekord ütles preili Smith neile,

which anagrams to do

milliseid anagramme neil tuleb lahendada

and which markers to write their answers with.

ja millise viltpliiatsiga vastused üles kirjutada.

Now when the third group came in,

Ja kui tuli sisse kolmas grupp,

they were told that their anagrams and their markers

siis neile öeldi, et nende anagrammid ja viltpliiatsid

had been chosen by their mothers.

on välja valitud nende emade poolt.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

In reality,

Neile lastele,

the kids who were told what to do,

kellele anti ülesanded kätte käsukorras,

whether by Miss Smith or their mothers,

kas preili Smithi või nende emade poolt,

were actually given the very same activity,

anti täpselt needsamad ülesanded,

which their counterparts in the first group

mille nende kaaslased esimesest grupist

had freely chosen.

olid ise vabalt valinud.

With this procedure, we were able to ensure

Sel viisil saime garanteerida,

that the kids across the three groups

et lapsed kõigis kolmes grupis

all did the same activity,

sooritasid kõik samu ülesandeid,

making it easier for us to compare performance.

mis tegi nende saavutuste võrdlemise lihtsamaks.

Such small differences in the way we administered the activity

Niivõrd väike vahe selles, kuidas ülesanne kätte anti,

yielded striking differences

tekitas hämmastava vahe selles,

in how well they performed.

kui hästi lapsed hakkama said.

Anglo-Americans,

Angloameerika lapsed

they did two and a half times more anagrams

lahendasid kaks ja pool korda rohkem anagramme,

when they got to choose them,

kui nad olid saanud ise ülesande valida,

as compared to when it was

võrreldes sellega, kui ülesande

chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers.

oli valinud preili Smith või nende emad.

It didn't matter who did the choosing,

Polnud vahet, kes nende eest valiku tegi,

if the task was dictated by another,

aga kui ülesande kirjutas ette keegi teine,

their performance suffered.

siis nende tulemused kannatasid.

In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed

Mõnedel lastel oli koguni silmnähtavalt piinlik,

when they were told that their mothers had been consulted.

kui neile öeldi, et nende emadelt oli nõu küsitud.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

One girl named Mary said,

Üks Mary-nimeline tüdruk ütles:

"You asked my mother?"

"Te küsisite minu emalt?"

(Laughter)

(Naer)

In contrast,

Vastukaaluks

Asian-American children

said aasia-ameerika päritolu lapsed

performed best when they believed

parimaid tulemusi siis, kui nad uskusid,

their mothers had made the choice,

et nende emad on nende eest valiku teinud,

second best when they chose for themselves,

teiseks parema tulemuse siis, kui said ise valida

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

ja kõige halvema, kui valiku oli teinud preili Smith.

A girl named Natsumi

Üks tüdruk nimega Natsumi

even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room

läks koguni ruumist väljudes preili Smithi juurde,

and tugged on her skirt and asked,

sikutas teda seelikust ja küsis:

"Could you please tell my mommy

"Kas te palun ütleksite emmele,

I did it just like she said?"

et ma tegin just nii, nagu ta ütles?"

The first-generation children were strongly influenced

Esimese põlvkonna lapsi mõjutas tugevalt

by their immigrant parents'

nende immigrantidest vanemate

approach to choice.

suhtumine valikute tegemisse.

For them, choice was not just a way

Valik ei olnud nende jaoks

of defining and asserting

viis määratleda ja maksma panna

their individuality,

oma individuaalsust,

but a way to create community and harmony

vaid vahend kogukonna ja harmoonia loomiseks,

by deferring to the choices

andes järele nende inimeste valikutele,

of people whom they trusted and respected.

keda nad usaldavad ja austavad.

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

Kui neid saadab arusaam enda truuks jäämisest,

then that self, most likely,

siis see "mina" ei koosne ilmselt

[was] composed, not of an individual,

mitte üksikisikust

but of a collective.

vaid kollektiivist.

Success was just as much about pleasing key figures

Edu tähendab nende jaoks sama palju

as it was about satisfying

võtmeisikutele meele järele olemist

one's own preferences.

kui oma eelistuste rahuldamist.

Or, you could say that

Võib ka öelda,

the individual's preferences were shaped

et üksikisiku eelistusi on vorminud

by the preferences of specific others.

teatud teiste isikute eelistused.

The assumption then that we do best

Oletus, et me anname oma parima,

when the individual self chooses

kui valiku teeb üksikisiku mina,

only holds

peab paika vaid siis,

when that self

kui see mina

is clearly divided from others.

on teistest selgelt eraldatud.

When, in contrast,

Vastukaaluks,

two or more individuals

kui kaks või enam üksikisikut

see their choices and their outcomes

näevad oma valikuid ja nende tulemusi

as intimately connected,

väga lähedalt seotuna,

then they may amplify one another's success

siis võivad nad teineteise edu võimendada,

by turning choosing

muutes valikute langetamise

into a collective act.

kollektiivseks tegevuseks.

To insist that they choose independently

Nõuda, et nad teeksid iseseisvaid valikuid,

might actually compromise

võiks koguni ohustada

both their performance

nende mõlema sooritusi

and their relationships.

ja suhteid.

Yet that is exactly what

Ja ometi täpselt seda

the American paradigm demands.

ameerika paradigma nõuabki.

It leaves little room for interdependence

See jätab vähe ruumi vastastikule sõltumisele

or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility.

või üksikisiku ekslikkuse tunnistamisele.

It requires that everyone treat choice

See nõuab, et igaüks suhtuks valikute langetamisse

as a private and self-defining act.

kui eraviisilisse ja ennast määratlevasse tegevusse.

People that have grown up in such a paradigm

Inimesed, kes on üles kasvanud säärases raamistkus,

might find it motivating,

võivad pidada seda motiveerivaks.

but it is a mistake to assume

Kui on viga eeldada,

that everyone thrives under the pressure

et igaüks saavutab edu

of choosing alone.

üksinda valimise surve all.

The second assumption which informs the American view of choice

Teine oletus, mis toidab ameeriklaste nägemust valikute langetamisest,

goes something like this.

kõlab umbes nii.

The more choices you have,

Mida rohkem valikuvariante sul on,

the more likely you are

seda tõenäolisem,

to make the best choice.

et sa teed parima valiku.

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

Nii et elagu Wal-Mart oma 100 000 erineva tootega,

and Amazon, with 27 million books

Amazon oma 27 miljoni raamatuga

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

ja Match.com oma - mis seal ongi? -

15 million date possibilities now.

nüüd juba 15 miljoni võimaliku kohtinguga.

You will surely find the perfect match.

Leiate kindlasti täiusliku kaaslase.

Let's test this assumption

Kontrollime seda oletust,

by heading over to Eastern Europe.

liikudes edasi Ida-Euroopasse.

Here, I interviewed people

Siin küsitlesin ma inimesi,

who were residents of formerly communist countries,

kes elavad endistes kommunistlikes maades

who had all faced the challenge

ja kes on kõik läbi elanud katsumuse

of transitioning to a more

minna üle demokraatlikumasse

democratic and capitalistic society.

ja kapitalistlikumasse ühiskonda.

One of the most interesting revelations

Üks huvitavamaid avastusi

came not from an answer to a question,

ei tulnud mitte vastusena küsimusele,

but from a simple gesture of hospitality.

vaid lihtsa külalislahkuse kujul.

When the participants arrived for their interview,

Kui osavõtjad saabusid intervjuud andma,

I offered them a set of drinks:

pakkusin ma neile valiku jooke,

Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite --

Coca-Cola, dieet-Coca-Cola, Sprite -

seven, to be exact.

kokku seitse varianti, kui täpne olla.

During the very first session,

Esimesel kohtumisel,

which was run in Russia,

mis toimus Venemaal,

one of the participants made a comment

ütles üks osaleja välja kommentaari,

that really caught me off guard.

mida ma sugugi ei oodanud.

"Oh, but it doesn't matter.

"Oh, aga vahet ju pole.

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

See kõik on ju limonaad. See on ainult üks valik."

(Murmuring)

(Pomin)

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

Mind rabas see kommentaar niivõrd, et edaspidi

I started to offer all the participants

hakkasin kõigile osalejatele pakkuma

those seven sodas,

neid seitset limonaadi.

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

Ja küsisin neilt: "Mitu valikut siin on?"

Again and again,

Ning ikka ja jälle

they perceived these seven different sodas,

nägid inimesed neid seitset erinevat limonaadi

not as seven choices, but as one choice:

mitte kui seitset valikuvarianti, vaid kui üht:

soda or no soda.

juua limonaadi või mitte.

When I put out juice and water

Kui ma serveerisin ka mahla ja vett,

in addition to these seven sodas,

lisaks seitsmele limonaadile,

now they perceived it as only three choices --

siis nähti seda kui kolme varianti -

juice, water and soda.

mahl, vesi ja limonaad.

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

Võrrelge seda paljude ameeriklaste veendunud

not just to a particular flavor of soda,

pühendumusega mitte vaid ühte sorti limonaadile,

but to a particular brand.

vaid koguni kindlale kaubamärgile.

You know, research shows repeatedly

Kas teate, et uuringud on korduvalt näidanud,

that we can't actually tell the difference

et me ei suuda tegelikult teha vahet

between Coke and Pepsi.

Coca-Colal ja Pepsil.

Of course, you and I know

Mina ja teie teame muidugi,

that Coke is the better choice.

et Coca-Cola on parem valik.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

For modern Americans who are exposed

Kaasaegsete ameeriklaste jaoks, kelle ees on

to more options and more ads associated with options

suurem valik võimalusi ja võimalustega seotud reklaame

than anyone else in the world,

kui kellelgi teisel maailmas,

choice is just as much about who they are

seostub valik samavõrd sellega, kes nad on,

as it is about what the product is.

kui sellega, milline on toode.

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

Lisage siia juurde oletus, et mida enam võimalusi, seda parem,

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

ja teie ees on rühm inimesi, kellele loeb iga väikegi erinevus

and so every choice matters.

ja seega loeb ka iga valik.

But for Eastern Europeans,

Kuid ida-eurooplaste jaoks

the sudden availability of all these

oli see äkiline tarbijale suunatud toodete

consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge.

valiku rohkus turul kui veeuputus.

They were flooded with choice

Nad uputati valikuvõimalustega üle,

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

enne kui nad jõudsid protesteerida, et nad ei oska ujuda.

When asked, "What words and images

Kui temalt küsiti: "Millised sõnu ja pilte

do you associate with choice?"

sa valiku tegemisega seostad?"

Grzegorz from Warsaw said,

vastas Gregors Varssavist niimoodi:

"Ah, for me it is fear.

"Minu jaoks on see hirm.

There are some dilemmas you see.

Siin on dilemmad, saate aru?

I am used to no choice."

Ma olen harjunud, et valikut pole."

Bohdan from Kiev said,

Bogdan Kiievist ütles

in response to how he felt about

vastuseks küsimusele, et mida ta

the new consumer marketplace,

arvab uuest tarbijaturust:

"It is too much.

"Seda on liiga palju.

We do not need everything that is there."

Meil pole vaja kõike, mida seal pakutakse."

A sociologist from

Üks sotsioloog Varssavi

the Warsaw Survey Agency explained,

uuringute agentuurist selgitas:

"The older generation jumped from nothing

"Vanem generatsioon tegi hüppe eimillegi juurest

to choice all around them.

selle juurde, et kõikjal on valikud."

They were never given a chance to learn

"Neile ei antud võimalust

how to react."

õppida reageerima."

And Tomasz, a young Polish man said,

Poola noormees Tomasz ütles:

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

"Ma ei vaja kahtekümmet erinevat tüüpi nätsu.

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

Ma ei taha öelda, nagu ma ei sooviks võimalust valida,

but many of these choices are quite artificial."

kuid paljud neist valikutest on üsna kunstlikud."

In reality, many choices are between things

Tegelikult on mitmed valikud vaid asjade vahel,

that are not that much different.

mis üksteisest väga ei erinegi.

The value of choice

Valiku väärtus

depends on our ability

seisneb meie võimes

to perceive differences

tajuda erinevusi

between the options.

valikuvariantide vahel.

Americans train their whole lives

Ameeriklased harjutavad eluaeg

to play "spot the difference."

mängima mängu "märka erinevust".

They practice this from such an early age

Nad mängivad seda nii maast-madalast,

that they've come to believe that everyone

et usuvad, et kõigil teistelgi

must be born with this ability.

on see võime kaasa sündinud.

In fact, though all humans share

Tegelikult, kuigi kõigil inimestel on

a basic need and desire for choice,

algne vajadus ja soov valikuid teha,

we don't all see choice in the same places

ei näe me kõik vajadust valida samades kohtades

or to the same extent.

või samal määral.

When someone can't see how one choice

Kui inimene ei näe, mille poolest üks variant

is unlike another,

erineb teisest

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

või kui variante on liiga palju, et neid kõrvutada ja võrrelda,

the process of choosing can be

siis võib valiku tegemise protsess

confusing and frustrating.

teda segadusse ajada ja tuska valmistada.

Instead of making better choices,

Selle asemel, et teha paremaid valikuid,

we become overwhelmed by choice,

oleme valikute tulvast tummaks löödud

sometimes even afraid of it.

ja vahel koguni kardame neid.

Choice no longer offers opportunities,

Valik ei paku enam võimalusi,

but imposes constraints.

vaid surub peale piiranguid.

It's not a marker of liberation,

See pole mitte märk vabadusest,

but of suffocation

vaid lämmatamisest

by meaningless minutiae.

läbi mõttetute pisiasjade.

In other words,

Teisisõnu,

choice can develop into the very opposite

valik võib kujuneda selle kõige vastandiks,

of everything it represents

mida ta esindab

in America

Ameerikas,

when it is thrust upon those

kui seda suruda peale inimestele,

who are insufficiently prepared for it.

kes pole selleks piisavalt ette valmistatud.

But it is not only other people

Kuid inimesed teistes maades

in other places

ei ole ainsad,

that are feeling the pressure

kes tunnevad kasvavat survet

of ever-increasing choice.

seoses valikuvõimaluste pideva suurenemisega.

Americans themselves are discovering

Ameeriklased ise on hakanud avastama,

that unlimited choice

et piiramatu valikuvõimalus

seems more attractive in theory

näib teoorias palju ahvatlevam,

than in practice.

kui see praktikas on.

We all have physical, mental

Meil kõigil on füüsilised, vaimsed

and emotional (Laughter) limitations

ja emotsionaalsed piirid,

that make it impossible for us

mis muudavad võimatuks

to process every single choice we encounter,

iga viimast kui ettejuhtuvat valikut läbi mõelda,

even in the grocery store,

olgu see kasvõi toidupoes,

let alone over the course of our entire lives.

rääkimata valikuist kogu meie elu jooksul.

A number of my studies have shown

Mitmed minu uuringud on näidanud,

that when you give people 10 or more options

et kui anda inimestele valiku tegemisel

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

rohkem kui 10 varianti, siis langetavad nad halvemaid otsuseid,

whether it be health care, investment,

olgu siis tegemist tervishoiu, investeeringute

other critical areas.

või mõne muu olulise asjaga.

Yet still, many of us believe

Ometi usuvad paljud meist,

that we should make all our own choices

et peame kõik oma otsused ise tegema

and seek out even more of them.

ja leidma rohkem võimalusi ise otsustada.

This brings me to the third,

Siit jõuan ma kolmanda

and perhaps most problematic, assumption:

ja võib-olla kõige problemaatilisema oletuseni:

"You must never

"Mitte kunagi ei tohi

say no to choice."

keelduda võimalusest valida."

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

Selle vaatlemiseks pöördugem tagasi USA-sse

and then hop across the pond to France.

ja seejärel hüppame üle lombi Prantsusmaale.

Right outside Chicago,

Chicago lähistel

a young couple, Susan and Daniel Mitchell,

ootas üks noorpaar, Susan ja Daniel Mitchell,

were about to have their first baby.

oma esimese lapse sündi.

They'd already picked out a name for her,

Nad olid juba valinud tütrele nime,

Barbara, after her grandmother.

Barbara, lapse vanaema järgi.

One night, when Susan was seven months pregnant,

Ühel ööl, Susani seitsmendal raseduskuul,

she started to experience contractions

tabasid teda tuhud

and was rushed to the emergency room.

ja ta viidi kiirabiga haiglasse.

The baby was delivered through a C-section,

Laps tuli keisrilõike abil ilmale,

but Barbara suffered cerebral anoxia,

kuid Barbara kannatas ajuanoksia all,

a loss of oxygen to the brain.

kus aju ei saa piisavalt hapnikku.

Unable to breathe on her own,

Kuna ta ise hingata ei suutnud,

she was put on a ventilator.

pandi beebi hingamisaparaadi alla.

Two days later,

Kaks päeva hiljem

the doctors gave the Mitchells

andsid arstid Mitchellidele

a choice:

valiku.

They could either remove Barbara

Nad võisid kas lülitada

off the life support,

Barbarat elus hoidva aparaadi välja,

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

mispuhul ta sureks mõne tunni jooksul,

or they could keep her on life support,

või hoida teda aparaadi all,

in which case she might still die

mispuhul ta ilmselt sureks ikkagi

within a matter of days.

mõne päeva jooksul.

If she survived, she would remain

Kui ta siiski elus püsiks, siis jääks ta

in a permanent vegetative state,

terveks eluks vegetatiivsesse seisundisse,

never able to walk, talk

ega suudaks eales kõndida, rääkida

or interact with others.

või teistega suhelda.

What do they do?

Mida nad siis tegid?

What do any parent do?

Mida teeb iga lapsevanem?

In a study I conducted

Uuringus, mille ma viisin läbi koos

with Simona Botti and Kristina Orfali,

Simona Botti ja Kristina Orfaliga,

American and French parents

küsitleti ameerika ja prantsuse

were interviewed.

lapsevanemaid.

They had all suffered

Nad kõik olid üle elanud

the same tragedy.

samasuguse tragöödia.

In all cases, the life support was removed,

Kõigi juhtumite puhul oli aparatuur välja lülitatud

and the infants had died.

ja laps oli surnud.

But there was a big difference.

Kuid seal oli suur vahe.

In France, the doctors decided whether and when

Prantsumaal otsustas arst, kas ja millal

the life support would be removed,

last elus hoidev aparatuur välja lülitada,

while in the United States,

samas kui Ühendriikides

the final decision rested with the parents.

tegid viimase valiku vanemad.

We wondered:

Me juurdlesime:

does this have an effect on how the parents

kas sel on mingi mõju sellele, kuidas vanemad

cope with the loss of their loved one?

armastatud lapse surmast üle saavad?

We found that it did.

Avastasime, et on küll.

Even up to a year later,

Veel koguni aasta hiljem

American parents

oli ameerika lapsevanematel

were more likely to express negative emotions,

suurem tõenäosus kogeda negatiivseid emotsioone,

as compared to their French counterparts.

võrreldes nende prantsuse saatusekaaslastega.

French parents were more likely to say things like,

Prantsuse vanemad ütlesid pigem selliseid asju nagu:

"Noah was here for so little time,

"Noah oli siin nii lühikest aega,

but he taught us so much.

kuid ta õpetas meile väga palju.

He gave us a new perspective on life."

Ta pani meid elule teistmoodi vaatama."

American parents were more likely to say things like,

Ameerika vanematel oli pigem tavaks öelda asju nagu:

"What if? What if?"

"Aga mis siis kui? Aga mis siis kui?"

Another parent complained,

Üks teine lapsevanem kurtis:

"I feel as if they purposefully tortured me.

"Ma tunnen, et nad piinasid mind meelega.

How did they get me to do that?"

Kuidas nad veensid mind seda tegema?"

And another parent said,

Üks teine lapsevanem ütles:

"I feel as if I've played a role

"Ma tunnen, nagu oleksin olnud

in an execution."

osaline hukkamisel."

But when the American parents were asked

Aga kui ameerika vanematelt küsiti,

if they would rather have had

kas nad oleksid parema meelega

the doctors make the decision,

lasknud arstidel otsustada,

they all said, "No."

vastasid nad kõik eitavalt.

They could not imagine

Nad ei suutnud ette kujutada,

turning that choice over to another,

et jätaksid selle valiku kellegi teise teha,

even though having made that choice

kuigi otsuselangetamine,

made them feel trapped,

tekitas neis lõksujäämise tunde,

guilty, angry.

nad tundsid süüd ja viha.

In a number of cases

Mitmel juhul tabas neid

they were even clinically depressed.

koguni kliiniline depressioon.

These parents could not contemplate

Need vanemad ei suutnud mõeldagi sellest,

giving up the choice,

et loovutada otsustamine teistele,

because to do so would have gone contrary

sest niisugune otsus oleks käinud

to everything they had been taught

kõige vastu, mida neile õpetatud on

and everything they had come to believe

ja mida nad usuvad

about the power

valikute langetamise

and purpose of choice.

võimu ja eesmärkide kohta.

In her essay, "The White Album,"

Oma essees "Valge album"

Joan Didion writes,

kirjutab Joan Didion:

"We tell ourselves stories

"Me räägime endale lugusid

in order to live.

selleks, et elada.

We interpret what we see,

Me tõlgendame seda, mida näeme,

select the most workable

valime paljude hulgast selle,

of the multiple choices.

mis kõige paremini toimib.

We live entirely by the imposition

Me elame täiesti kokkusobimatutele

of a narrative line

piltidele peale surutud

upon disparate images,

narratiivse joone järgi,

by the idea with which we have learned to freeze

mis põhineb arusaamadel, mille järgi

the shifting phantasmagoria,

me oleme õppinud fikseerima seda muutuvat

which is our actual experience."

fantasmagooriat, mis on meie tegelikud kogemused."

The story Americans tell,

Lugu, mida ameeriklased räägivad,

the story upon which

lugu, millel rajaneb

the American dream depends,

Ameerika unelm,

is the story of limitless choice.

on lugu piiramatutest valikutest.

This narrative

See narratiiv

promises so much:

lubab niivõrd palju:

freedom, happiness,

vabadust, õnne,

success.

edu.

It lays the world at your feet and says,

See asetab maailma su jalge ette ja ütleb:

"You can have anything, everything."

"Sa võid saada mida iganes, saada kõik."

It's a great story,

See on suurepärane lugu

and it's understandable why they would be reluctant

ja on arusaadav, miks nad ei taha

to revise it.

seda redigeerida.

But when you take a close look,

Aga kui vaadata lähemalt,

you start to see the holes,

siis hakkate märkama auke

and you start to see that the story

ning hakkate tähele panema,

can be told in many other ways.

et lugu saab ka mitmel teisel moel rääkida.

Americans have so often tried to

Ameeriklased on väga tihti püüdnud

disseminate their ideas of choice,

levitada oma arusaama valikutest,

believing that they will be, or ought to be,

uskudes, et neid võetaks, või peaks võetama

welcomed with open hearts and minds.

vastu avatud südame ja meelega.

But the history books and the daily news tell us

Kuid ajalooraamatud ja päevauudised ütlevad,

it doesn't always work out that way.

et alati see nii ei lähe.

The phantasmagoria,

See fantasmagooria,

the actual experience that we try to understand

tegelik kogemus, millest me püüame aru saada

and organize through narrative,

ja mida läbi narratiivi kuidagi korrastada,

varies from place to place.

on erinevates paikades erinev.

No single narrative serves the needs

Mitte ükski narratiiv ei teeni

of everyone everywhere.

kõigi inimeste huve igal pool.

Moreover, Americans themselves

Veelgi enam, ameeriklased ise

could benefit from incorporating

võiksid kasu lõigata uute vaatenurkade

new perspectives into their own narrative,

toomisest oma narratiivi,

which has been driving their choices

mis on nende valikute tegemist

for so long.

nii kaua juhtinud.

Robert Frost once said that,

Robert Frost ütles kunagi:

"It is poetry that is lost in translation."

"See on poeesia, mis on tõlkes kaduma läinud."

This suggests that

Mõte viitab sellele, et

whatever is beautiful and moving,

mis on kaunis ja liikuv,

whatever gives us a new way to see,

mis iganes annab meile uue pilgu,

cannot be communicated to those

seda ei saa edasi anda neile,

who speak a different language.

kes räägivad teist keelt.

But Joseph Brodsky said that,

Kuid Joseph Brodsky ütles:

"It is poetry

"See on poeesia,

that is gained in translation,"

mis on tõlkes juurde võidetud,"

suggesting that translation

viidates sellele, et tõlge

can be a creative,

võib olla loominguline

transformative act.

ja muundav toiming.

When it comes to choice,

Mis puudutab valikute tegemist,

we have far more to gain than to lose

siis meil on rohkem võita kui kaotada,

by engaging in the many

kui võtame kuulda

translations of the narratives.

narratiivide erinevaid tõlkeid.

Instead of replacing

Selle asemel, et asendada

one story with another,

üks lugu teisega,

we can learn from and revel in

saame õppida ja nautida

the many versions that exist

mitut olemasolevat versiooni

and the many that have yet to be written.

ning paljusid, mida pole veel kirja pandud.

No matter where we're from

Kust iganes me pärit oleme

and what your narrative is,

või milline iganes on sinu narratiiv,

we all have a responsibility

meil kõigil on kohustus

to open ourselves up to a wider array

avada end laiemale skaalale

of what choice can do,

sellest, mida valik võib teha

and what it can represent.

ja mida see võib esindada.

And this does not lead to

Ja see ei vii mitte

a paralyzing moral relativism.

halvava moraalse relatiivsuseni.

Rather, it teaches us when

Pigem õpetab see meile,

and how to act.

millal ja kuidas tegutseda.

It brings us that much closer

See viib meid niivõrd palju lähemale

to realizing the full potential of choice,

valimise täieliku potentsiaali mõistmiseni,

to inspiring the hope

selle lootuse tekitamiseni

and achieving the freedom

ja vabaduse saavutamiseni,

that choice promises

mida valikuvõimalus lubab,

but doesn't always deliver.

kuid alati ei paku.

If we learn to speak to one another,

Kui me õpime teineteisega rääkima,

albeit through translation,

olgugi läbi tõlke,

then we can begin to see choice

siis me hakkame nägema valikut

in all its strangeness,

kogu tema kummalisuses,

complexity

keerulisuses

and compelling beauty.

ja rabavas ilus.

Thank you.

Tänan teid.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

Bruno Giussani: Thank you.

Bruno Giussiani: Tänan teid.

Sheena, there is a detail about your biography

Sheena, sinu eluloos on üks detail,

that we have not written in the program book.

mida me kavalehele ei kirjutanud.

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

Kuid nüüdseks on see kõigile ruumis viibijatele selge. Sa oled pime.

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

Ja ma arvan, et kõigil mõlgub meeles üks küsimus:

How does that influence your study of choosing

kuidas mõjutab see sinu uurimustööd valikutest,

because that's an activity

kuna see on tegevus, mida

that for most people is associated with visual inputs

enamik inimesi seostab visuaalsete signaalidega

like aesthetics and color and so on?

nagu välimus ja värv ja nii edasi?

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

Sheena Iyengar: naljakas, et sa seda küsid,

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

sest üks asi, mis pimeda inimese puhul huvitav on -

is you actually get a different vantage point

nimelt on sul hoopis teine positsioon,

when you observe the way

jälgides seda, kuidas nägijad

sighted people make choices.

oma valikuid teevad.

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

Nagu sa just mainisid, maailmas on palju valikuid,

that are very visual these days.

mis on visuaalsed.

Yeah, I -- as you would expect --

Nagu te võite arvata,

get pretty frustrated by choices

teevad valikud mulle vahel tuska -

like what nail polish to put on

nagu näiteks millist küünelakki valida -

because I have to rely on what other people suggest.

sest ma pean toetuma sellele, mida teised soovitavad.

And I can't decide.

Ja ma ei saa ise otsustada.

And so one time I was in a beauty salon,

Ükskord olin ma ilusalongis

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

ja püüdsin otsustada kahe väga heleda roosa rooni vahel.

And one was called "Ballet Slippers."

Ühe nimetus oli "Balletikingad."

And the other one was called "Adorable."

Ja teise nimetus oli "Hurmav".

(Laughter)

(Naer)

And so I asked these two ladies,

Niisiis küsisin nende kahe daami käest.

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

Üks daam vastas mulle: "Te peaksite kindlasti võtma "Balletikingad"."

"Well, what does it look like?"

"Aga milline see välja näeb?"

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

"Noh, sellel on väga elegantne roosa varjund."

"Okay, great."

"Olgu, väga hea."

The other lady tells me to wear "Adorable."

Teine daam soovitas mul valida "Hurmava."

"What does it look like?"

"Milline see välja näeb?"

"It's a glamorous shade of pink."

"Sellel on glamuurne roosa varjund."

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

Ma küsisin neilt: "Aga kuidas ma neil vahet teen?"

What's different about them?"

"Mille poolest nad erinevad?"

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

Nad ütlesid: "Üks on elegantne, teine on glamuurne."

Okay, we got that.

Olgu, sellest me saime aru.

And the only thing they had consensus on:

Ja ainus, milles nad üksmeelele jõudsid, oli see,

well, if I could see them, I would

et kui ma neid näha suudaksin,

clearly be able to tell them apart.

siis suudaksin neil ka selgelt vahet teha.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

And what I wondered was whether they were being affected

Ma mõtlesin, kas nende valikuid mõjutas

by the name or the content of the color,

pigem toote nimi või selle värv.

so I decided to do a little experiment.

Niisiis otsustasin teha väikese eksperimendi.

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

Tõin need kaks pudelit küünelakki laborisse

and I stripped the labels off.

ja koorisin neilt sildid maha.

And I brought women into the laboratory,

Kutsusin laborisse naised

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

ja küsisin neilt: "Millise valiksite teie?"

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

50 protsenti naistest süüdistasid mind pettuses,

of putting the same color nail polish

et olen mõlemasse pudelisse pannud

in both those bottles.

sama värvi laki.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

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

Sel hetkel hakkad kahtlema, et keda siin õieti petetud on.

Now, of the women that could tell them apart,

Naised, kes kahe laki vahel vahet märkasid,

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

valisid "Hurmava", kui sildid olid ära võetud,

and when the labels were on,

ja kui sildid olid küljes,

they picked "Ballet Slippers."

siis valisid nad "Balletikingad."

So as far as I can tell,

Niipalju, kui mina asjast aru saan,

a rose by any other name

siis roos paistab teist nime kandes

probably does look different

teistsugune

and maybe even smells different.

ja võib-olla koguni lõhnab teisiti.

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

BG: Tänan teid. Sheena Iyengar. Tänan sind, Sheena.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)