Laurie Santos: How monkeys mirror human irrationality

翻译人员: Wenjia Tang 校对人员: Tracie Chen

I want to start my talk today with two observations

我想以两个关于人类物种的现象

about the human species.

开始今天的话题

The first observation is something that you might think is quite obvious,

第一个现象也许你会觉得显而易见

and that's that our species, Homo sapiens,

这就是 我们的物种 智人

is actually really, really smart --

事实上非常非常的聪明

like, ridiculously smart --

聪明的无法形容

like you're all doing things

正如你们现在做的事情

that no other species on the planet does right now.

地球上其它任何物种都无法做到

And this is, of course,

而且 当然

not the first time you've probably recognized this.

这也许不是第一次你意识到这一点

Of course, in addition to being smart, we're also an extremely vain species.

当然 除了聪明意外 我们也是十分自负的物种

So we like pointing out the fact that we're smart.

因此我们喜欢指出我们聪明的这个事实

You know, so I could turn to pretty much any sage

要知道，我可以列举出如莎士比亚或者史蒂芬·考伯特

from Shakespeare to Stephen Colbert

这样的先哲

to point out things like the fact that

来指出一个事实，那就是

we're noble in reason and infinite in faculties

我们理性高贵、能力无穷，

and just kind of awesome-er than anything else on the planet

而且当需要动脑筋的时候

when it comes to all things cerebral.

是地球上最棒的。

But of course, there's a second observation about the human species

但是，当然我更希望将注意力更多的放在

that I want to focus on a little bit more,

人类的第二个现象上

and that's the fact that

而且事实上，

even though we're actually really smart, sometimes uniquely smart,

虽然我们真的非常聪明，有时候独一无二的聪明，

we can also be incredibly, incredibly dumb

我们有时也在制定决策的时候，

when it comes to some aspects of our decision making.

变得难以置信的愚蠢。

Now I'm seeing lots of smirks out there.

我看到在座的很多开始傻笑，

Don't worry, I'm not going to call anyone in particular out

不要担心，我不是来指出

on any aspects of your own mistakes.

你们中的任何一位犯的错误。

But of course, just in the last two years

但是，当然仅仅在过去的两年里，

we see these unprecedented examples of human ineptitude.

我们见证了许多前所未有的，足以证明人类的无能的例子。

And we've watched as the tools we uniquely make

我们见到了我们使用特制的工具，

to pull the resources out of our environment

将资源从环境中发掘出来，

kind of just blow up in our face.

就像突然从我们的脸上爆发一样。

We've watched the financial markets that we uniquely create --

我们也看到我们特意创造的，

these markets that were supposed to be foolproof --

本应该万无一失的金融市场，

we've watched them kind of collapse before our eyes.

在我们眼皮子底下轰然坍塌。

But both of these two embarrassing examples, I think,

但是，我想这两个令人尴尬的例子

don't highlight what I think is most embarrassing

并不是人类所犯错误里

about the mistakes that humans make,

最让人尴尬的。

which is that we'd like to think that the mistakes we make

我们可能更倾向于认为这些错误

are really just the result of a couple bad apples

更像几个烂苹果，

or a couple really sort of FAIL Blog-worthy decisions.

或者几个错误的值得在博客上宣扬的决定。

But it turns out, what social scientists are actually learning

但是事实上，社会科学家认为

is that most of us, when put in certain contexts,

当在一定的环境中，我们中的大多数人

will actually make very specific mistakes.

都会犯一些非常特定的错误。

The errors we make are actually predictable.

我们犯的这些错误实际上是可以预判的，

We make them again and again.

我们总是在犯同样的错误。

And they're actually immune to lots of evidence.

而且对很多证据视而不见。

When we get negative feedback,

当我们得到负面反馈的时候，

we still, the next time we're face with a certain context,

却总是在再次面对同样的情况时，

tend to make the same errors.

犯下同样的错误。

And so this has been a real puzzle to me

所以我觉得困惑：

as a sort of scholar of human nature.

作为研究人类天性的学者，

What I'm most curious about is,

我最好奇的是，

how is a species that's as smart as we are

我们作为一个如此聪明的种类，

capable of such bad

为何总是犯如此糟糕，

and such consistent errors all the time?

如此类似的错误呢？

You know, we're the smartest thing out there, why can't we figure this out?

你们知道，我们是最聪明的，为什么对这个问题得不到答案？

In some sense, where do our mistakes really come from?

从某种意义上来说，我们的错误到底从何而来？

And having thought about this a little bit, I see a couple different possibilities.

考虑一阵子之后，我感觉有一些不同的可能性。

One possibility is, in some sense, it's not really our fault.

第一种可能性就是在某种意义上，这的确不是我们的错。

Because we're a smart species,

因为我们是聪明的物种，

we can actually create all kinds of environments

我们事实上能创造出很多种

that are super, super complicated,

非常非常复杂的环境，

sometimes too complicated for us to even actually understand,

复杂到有时候我们都不能理解，

even though we've actually created them.

虽然是我们创造出来的。

We create financial markets that are super complex.

我们创造出了超级复杂的金融市场，

We create mortgage terms that we can't actually deal with.

和自己都不能应付的房屋贷款条款，

And of course, if we are put in environments where we can't deal with it,

而且当然，如果我们处于不能应付的环境中，

in some sense makes sense that we actually

在某种意义上，

might mess certain things up.

是我们自己把一些事情搞砸了。

If this was the case, we'd have a really easy solution

如果这样的话，我们可以很轻松的解决

to the problem of human error.

这些人为错误的问题。

We'd actually just say, okay, let's figure out

我们可以说，好吧，

the kinds of technologies we can't deal with,

让我们挑出我们不能对付的技术，

the kinds of environments that are bad --

还有那些糟糕的环境，

get rid of those, design things better,

抛弃它们，设计更好的东西，

and we should be the noble species

而且我们需要成为我们期待的

that we expect ourselves to be.

那种高尚的物种。

But there's another possibility that I find a little bit more worrying,

但是我更担心的是另外一个可能，

which is, maybe it's not our environments that are messed up.

那就是，也许不是糟糕的环境的问题，

Maybe it's actually us that's designed badly.

也许问题出在没有设计好的我们自己身上。

This is a hint that I've gotten

这是我从观察社会科学家对人类错误的理解

from watching the ways that social scientists have learned about human errors.

而得到的启发。

And what we see is that people tend to keep making errors

我觉察到人们会一次又一次地

exactly the same way, over and over again.

以同样的方式犯错误。

It feels like we might almost just be built

就好像是我们被造的时候，

to make errors in certain ways.

就设计好了会以某种方式犯错误。

This is a possibility that I worry a little bit more about,

这就是我更担心的可能，

because, if it's us that's messed up,

因为如果我们自己的原因，

it's not actually clear how we go about dealing with it.

那就更不清楚应该怎么应对它了。

We might just have to accept the fact that we're error prone

我们也许只能接受这个事实，那就是我们也会犯错误，

and try to design things around it.

在设计东西的过程中只能尽可能的避免这些错误。

So this is the question my students and I wanted to get at.

所以这就是我和我的学生都很关心的问题，

How can we tell the difference between possibility one and possibility two?

我们如何分辨这两种可能的不同呢？

What we need is a population

我们需要一个聪明的，

that's basically smart, can make lots of decisions,

能做许多决定，

but doesn't have access to any of the systems we have,

但是和我们的系统——也就是我们可能弄糟的任何东西

any of the things that might mess us up --

都互不相干，

no human technology, human culture,

没有人类的技术，人类的文化，

maybe even not human language.

可能甚至没有人类的语言的群体。

And so this is why we turned to these guys here.

这就是为什么我们研究他们。

These are one of the guys I work with. This is a brown capuchin monkey.

这是我的工作对象之一。它是棕色卷尾猴。

These guys are New World primates,

它们属于新世界灵长科，

which means they broke off from the human branch

也就是说它们在三千五百万年前

about 35 million years ago.

已经与人类得分支脱离了。

This means that your great, great, great great, great, great --

这样的话，你的曾曾曾。。。祖母

with about five million "greats" in there --

大概往上推1千万代，

grandmother was probably the same great, great, great, great

可能和在这里的霍利

grandmother with five million "greats" in there

往上推1千万代的曾曾曾。。。祖母

as Holly up here.

是相同的。

You know, so you can take comfort in the fact that this guy up here is a really really distant,

为此我们可以放心的说在这里的家伙和我们是真的真的很远的

but albeit evolutionary, relative.

虽然有进化的远亲。

The good news about Holly though is that

关于霍利的好消息是：

she doesn't actually have the same kinds of technologies we do.

她实际上没有我们一样的技术。

You know, she's a smart, very cut creature, a primate as well,

你们知道，她是聪明的，很可爱的小动物，也属于灵长类，

but she lacks all the stuff we think might be messing us up.

而且她没有那些我们自己都搞不懂的东西。

So she's the perfect test case.

所以她应该是比较合适的实验对象。

What if we put Holly into the same context as humans?

如果我们把霍利放在跟人类同样的情境里呢？

Does she make the same mistakes as us?

她会不会犯跟我们同样的错误？

Does she not learn from them? And so on.

她是不是不会从中吸取教训呢？等等。。。

And so this is the kind of thing we decided to do.

这些都是我们想探讨的问题。

My students and I got very excited about this a few years ago.

我和我的学生在好几年前就很期待这个实验。

We said, all right, let's, you know, throw so problems at Holly,

我们说，让我们丢给霍利一些人类才有的问题，

see if she messes these things up.

看看她有什么反应。

First problem is just, well, where should we start?

第一个问题就是，嗯，从哪儿开始呢？

Because, you know, it's great for us, but bad for humans.

因为实验对我们来说很好，但对人类来说就很难了。

We make a lot of mistakes in a lot of different contexts.

我们在不同的领域会犯不同的错误。

You know, where are we actually going to start with this?

所以，我们的实验到底要从哪儿开始呢？

And because we started this work around the time of the financial collapse,

正好实验开始的时候是在金融危机的时候，

around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news,

同时新闻也不停的报道抵押品回收的消息，

we said, hhmm, maybe we should

我们想，也许

actually start in the financial domain.

就从金融领域开始好了。

Maybe we should look at monkey's economic decisions

让我们来观察猴子在经济方面的决策，

and try to see if they do the same kinds of dumb things that we do.

看看他们是不是也犯跟我们一样的错误。

Of course, that's when we hit a sort second problem --

当然，第二个问题也就随之而来,

a little bit more methodological --

就是方法上的问题，

which is that, maybe you guys don't know,

各位可能不知道，

but monkeys don't actually use money. I know, you haven't met them.

猴子是不是用货币的。各位没跟猴子及出国。

But this is why, you know, they're not in the queue behind you

这就是为什么当你在杂货店或者提款机前面的时候，

at the grocery store or the ATM -- you know, they don't do this stuff.

没看到猴子排在你后面——他们才不做这种事情。

So now we faced, you know, a little bit of a problem here.

所以我们在这儿碰到一点麻烦，

How are we actually going to ask monkeys about money

如果猴子不用钱，

if they don't actually use it?

那要怎么让猴子开始用钱呢？

So we said, well, maybe we should just, actually just suck it up

我们就像，好吧，稍微忍耐一下，

and teach monkeys how to use money.

先从教猴子用钱开始。

So that's just what we did.

所以我们就照做了。

What you're looking at over here is actually the first unit that I know of

各位看到我手上拿的这个小东西

of non-human currency.

就是我知道的第一个非人类社会的货币的基本单位。

We weren't very creative at the time we started these studies,

我们在开始这项研究的时候没多少创意，

so we just called it a token.

所以暂时叫它代币。

But this is the unit of currency that we've taught our monkeys at Yale

我们在耶鲁大学教猴子们使用这些货币

to actually use with humans,

和人类做交易，

to actually buy different pieces of food.

用来买不同的水果。

It doesn't look like much -- in fact, it isn't like much.

它看起来不起眼，实际上也没什么价值。

Like most of our money, it's just a piece of metal.

和我们的货币系统一样，它使用金属做的。

As those of you who've taken currencies home from your trip know,

就像各位旅行后带回家的各种外币一样，

once you get home, it's actually pretty useless.

一旦你到家了，这钱也就没法用了。

It was useless to the monkeys at first

在猴子们了解能用这些代币做什么之前，

before they realized what they could do with it.

对它们来说这些东西也一点用都没有。

When we first gave it to them in their enclosures,

当我们第一次把这些代币放到猴笼里，

they actually kind of picked them up, looked at them.

它们捡了起来，看着这些代币。

They were these kind of weird things.

对它们来说是很奇怪的事情。

But very quickly, the monkeys realized

不过很快这些猴子就认识到，

that they could actually hand these tokens over

他们可以用这些代币

to different humans in the lab for some food.

跟实验室里不同的人换食物。

And so you see one of our monkeys, Mayday, up here doing this.

可以看到其中一只猴子，五月天，就正在做这件事情。

This is A and B are kind of the points where she's sort of a little bit

A图到B图是她 正对这些代币感到一点好奇，

curious about these things -- doesn't know.

因为她从来没见过这些东西。

There's this waiting hand from a human experimenter,

图C是实验人员正在伸出手等着，

and Mayday quickly figures out, apparently the human wants this.

五月天很快就意识到，显然人类想要这个代币。

Hands it over, and then gets some food.

她交出代币，然后就拿到一些食物。

It turns out not just Mayday, all of our monkeys get good

不只是五月天，

at trading tokens with human salesman.

实验室里所有的猴子都懂。

So here's just a quick video of what this looks like.

这里有个小短片，我们大家来看看发生了什么。

Here's Mayday. She's going to be trading a token for some food

这是五月天。她要用代币换食物，

and waiting happily and getting her food.

她开心的等啊等，然后也顺利的拿到了食物。

Here's Felix, I think. He's our alpha male; he's a kind of big guy.

这是Felix，猴子群的老大，是个大家伙。

But he too waits patiently, gets his food and goes on.

他也同样耐心的等到了食物的到来。

So the monkeys get really good at this.

所以猴子们对交易这件事挺在行。

They're surprisingly good at this with very little training.

只要很少一点训练他们就能表现得非常好。

We just allowed them to pick this up on their own.

我们只是放手让他们自己做选择。

The question is: is this anything like human money?

问题是：这跟人类的货币有什么关系？

Is this a market at all,

市场运作就是这样而已？

or did we just do a weird psychologist's trick

或者我们只是用一些奇特的心理手段，

by getting monkeys to do something,

引诱猴子们去做一些事情，

looking smart, but not really being smart.

看似聪明实际上却并不聪明的事情。

And so we said, well, what would the monkeys spontaneously do

所以我们想，如果这真是它们的货币，也真是像我们用钱那样用它，

if this was really their currency, if they were really using it like money?

猴子们会做什么样的自然反应？

Well, you might actually imagine them

各位可以想象一下，

to do all the kinds of smart things

当他们开始用货币彼此做交易的时候，

that humans do when they start exchanging money with each other.

就是他们开始做类似人类做的聪明事情了。

You might have them start paying attention to price,

他们会开始注意到价格，

paying attention to how much they buy --

注意到该用多少价格去买，

sort of keeping track of their monkey token, as it were.

而且记住这些猴子币的使用情况。

Do the monkeys do anything like this?

看看猴子们是否做了这些事情呢？

And so our monkey marketplace was born.

于是我们的猴子市集诞生了。

The way this works is that

它是这样运作的：

our monkeys normally live in a kind of big zoo social enclosure.

我们让猴子生活在一种类似动物园的透明笼子里，

When they get a hankering for some treats,

当它们表现出想要做交易的时候，

we actually allowed them a way out

我们会让它们

into a little smaller enclosure where they could enter the market.

转移到一个可以进入“市场”的透明笼子里。

Upon entering the market --

一进入这个市场——

it was actually a much more fun market for the monkeys than most human markets

这个市场可比人类的市场有趣多了，

because, as the monkeys entered the door of the market,

因为，当猴子一进入这个市场，

a human would give them a big wallet full of tokens

人们会给他们一个装满代币的钱包，

so they could actually trade the tokens

它们可以用代币

with one of these two guys here --

和画面中的其中一个人做交易，

two different possible human salesmen

2个不同的销售员，

that they could actually buy stuff from.

猴子们可以从他们那儿买到不同的东西。

The salesmen were students from my lab.

这两位是我实验室里的学生。

They dressed differently; they were different people.

他们穿着不同的衣服。

And over time, they did basically the same thing

在一段时间内，销售员会一直做同样的事情，

so the monkeys could learn, you know,

所以猴子们就能意识到

who sold what at what price -- you know, who was reliable, who wasn't, and so on.

谁卖什么价格，谁比较可靠等等之类的事情。

And you can see that each of the experimenters

各位能看到这2位销售员

is actually holding up a little, yellow food dish.

都拿着一个小小的黄色食物盘，

and that's what the monkey can for a single token.

猴子可以用一个代币买盘子里的东西。

So everything costs one token,

其实每样东西都值一个代币，

but as you can see, sometimes tokens buy more than others,

但有时候一个代币可以买到比较多的东西，

sometimes more grapes than others.

也就是买到比较多的葡萄。

So I'll show you a quick video of what this marketplace actually looks like.

让我给大家演示一下这个猴子市集的运作情况。

Here's a monkey-eye-view. Monkeys are shorter, so it's a little short.

这是从猴子的视角拍的，所以比较低。

But here's Honey.

她是小可爱。

She's waiting for the market to open a little impatiently.

她有点不耐烦的等着市场开张。

All of a sudden the market opens. Here's her choice: one grapes or two grapes.

然后市场开张了，她有2个选择：买1个葡萄或者2个葡萄。

You can see Honey, very good market economist,

各位可以发现小可爱是个很棒的市场经济学家，

goes with the guy who gives more.

她跟卖较多葡萄的人做交易了。

She could teach our financial advisers a few things or two.

她可以给我们的财务学教授上课了。

So not just Honey,

不只是小可爱，

most of the monkeys went with guys who had more.

大多数的猴子都会跟卖较多葡萄的人做交易。

Most of the monkeys went with guys who had better food.

大多数的猴子都会跟有较好食物的人交易。

When we introduced sales, we saw the monkeys paid attention to that.

开始与猴子做买卖猴，我们发现猴子会专注在这件事情上。

They really cared about their monkey token dollar.

他们会在意猴子币的真正价值。

The more surprising thing was that when we collaborated with economists

最令人惊讶的是，当我们开始与经济学家合作，

to actually look at the monkeys' data using economic tools,

使用经济工具分析猴子的数据的时候，

they basically matched, not just qualitatively,

不管是在定性研究上，

but quantitatively with what we saw

还是在定量研究上，

humans doing in a real market.

他们的使用方式与我们人类在市场上做的一样。

So much so that, if you saw the monkeys' numbers,

以至于在定量研究中，

you couldn't tell whether they came from a monkey or a human in the same market.

你根本没法分辨这些数据结果是人类的还是猴子的。

And what we'd really thought we'd done

我们已经成功做到

is like we'd actually introduced something

引介给猴子一些东西，

that, at least for the monkeys and us,

至少猴子与我们

works like a real financial currency.

将代币运作得跟金融货币差不多。

Question is: do the monkeys start messing up in the same ways we do?

另一个问题是：猴子会不会跟我们一样把这个制度搞乱？

Well, we already saw anecdotally a couple of signs that they might.

其实我们也观察到一些现象。

One thing we never saw in the monkey marketplace

第一，在猴子市场中我们没发现到

was any evidence of saving --

任何储蓄的证据，

you know, just like our own species.

没发现像我们人一样的储蓄行为。

The monkeys entered the market, spent their entire budget

猴子来到市场，会把所有钱花光，

and then went back to everyone else.

然后再跳回猴群里。

The other thing we also spontaneously saw,

我们同时也发现另一件事，

embarrassingly enough,

非常尴尬，

is spontaneous evidence of larceny.

就是自发性的盗窃行为。

The monkeys would rip-off the tokens at every available opportunity --

猴子不放过任何机会来偷代币，

from each other, often from us --

偷同伴的、偷我们的。

you know, things we didn't necessarily think we were introducing,

这些都是我们不认为介绍给了猴子们的行为，

but things we spontaneously saw.

但是我们还是同时看到了这种行为。

So we said, this looks bad.

这看起来很糟糕。

Can we actually see if the monkeys

我们是否能够看到

are doing exactly the same dumb things as humans do?

猴子们做出跟人类一样愚蠢的事情？

One possibility is just kind of let

有个方法是先创立猴子金融市场，

the monkey financial system play out,

然后再让这个市场停摆，

you know, see if they start calling us for bailouts in a few years.

不过，这样做实验可能得等上好几年。

We were a little impatient so we wanted

我们有点等不及，

to sort of speed things up a bit.

所以让实验进行得快一点。

So we said, let's actually give the monkeys

我们就像，那就让这些小猴子们

the same kinds of problems

面对一些问题，

that humans tend to get wrong

这些问题是人类经常会犯错的

in certain kinds of economic challenges,

一些经济议题，或者

or certain kinds of economic experiments.

一些经济方面的实验。

And so, since the best way to see how people go wrong

想要了解人类是怎么犯错的，

is to actually do it yourself,

最直接的方式就是自己做一次。

I'm going to give you guys a quick experiment

所以我给大家一个小实验，

to sort of watch your own financial intuitions in action.

请各位用你的财务直觉来回答。

So imagine that right now

请各位现在想象一下，

I handed each and every one of you

我给现场每个人各1千美金，

a thousand U.S. dollars -- so 10 crisp hundred dollar bills.

10张百元钞票成一捆的1千美金。

Take these, put it in your wallet

把它放进你的皮夹里，

and spend a second thinking about what you're going to do with it.

花点时间想想你要拿这笔钱做什么。

Because it's yours now; you can buy whatever you want.

这是你的钱，你可以用它买任何想要的东西。

Donate it, take it, and so on.

捐出去，花掉，怎么都行。

Sounds great, but you get one more choice to earn a little bit more money.

听起来不错吧？不过再给你另一个机会，让你能拿1千美金以上的钱。

And here's your choice: you can either be risky,

第一种选择：冒险拿多一些，

in which case I'm going to flip one of these monkey tokens.

我用丢猴子代币来决定这个选择的结果。

If it comes up heads, you're going to get a thousand dollars more.

如果代币是正面，你可以多得1千美金。

If it comes up tails, you get nothing.

如果是背面，那你一分钱都不能多得。

So it's a chance to get more, but it's pretty risky.

有机会拿到比较多，但是要冒点风险。

Your other option is a bit safe. Your just going to get some money for sure.

而另一个比较安全的选择：让你再拿一笔确切的金额。

I'm just going to give you 500 bucks.

不过只能拿500美金。

You can stick it in your wallet and use it immediately.

你可以把这笔钱放进皮夹或者马上花掉。

So see what your intuition is here.

你的直觉决定好了吗？

Most people actually go with the play-it-safe option.

大部分的人会选择不冒险的选项。

Most people say, why should I be risky when I can get 1,500 dollars for sure?

这些人想说，我确定能拿1500美金，干嘛还要去冒险？

This seems like a good bet. I'm going to go with that.

这似乎是一个不错的选择，我选这个。

You might say, eh, that's not really irrational.

各位也许觉得这样选没错啊，

People are a little risk-averse. So what?

人是风险趋避者，有问题吗？

Well, the "so what?" comes when start thinking

人是不是风险趋避者的问题，

about the same problem

请思考过另一个类似问题后，

set up just a little bit differently.

再作判断。

So now imagine that I give each and every one of you

现在再想象一下，我现在给各位2千美金，

2,000 dollars -- 20 crisp hundred dollar bills.

20张百元钞票成一捆。

Now you can buy double to stuff you were going to get before.

你刚刚想买的物品可以多买一倍。

Think about how you'd feel sticking it in your wallet.

想想这笔钱在皮夹里的感觉。

And now imagine that I have you make another choice

现在，选择的一刻又来了，

But this time, it's a little bit worse.

但这次，条件比较糟糕。

Now, you're going to be deciding how you're going to lose money,

因为你将决定“失去金钱”的方式，

but you're going to get the same choice.

一样要从中做个选择。

You can either take a risky loss --

第一个选择是有风险的损失——

so I'll flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you're going to actually lose a lot.

一样用丢硬币，如果是正面，你会损失1千美金。

If it comes up tails, you lose nothing, you're fine, get to keep the whole thing --

如果是反面，你1毛都不用丢，2千美金好好放着。

or you could play it safe, which means you have to reach back into your wallet

或者可以不冒险，也就是说你乖乖把皮夹拿出来，

and give me five of those $100 bills, for certain.

然后给我5张100元钞票。

And I'm seeing a lot of furrowed brows out there.

我看到很多人眉头紧缩哦。

So maybe you're having the same intuitions

测试各位的这个问题，

as the subjects that were actually tested in this,

也许各位有着同样直觉的答案，

which is when presented with these options,

当这些选项摊开给大家选择时，

people don't choose to play it safe.

人们不会选安全的方案，

They actually tend to go a little risky.

而会选择冒险。

The reason this is irrational is that we've given people in both situations

明明是有着同样选择的2种情境下，

the same choice.

后者竟然变得不太理智。

It's a 50/50 shot of a thousand or 2,000,

拿到1000或2000元的机会各50%，

or just 1,500 dollars with certainty.

或者100%拿到1500元。

But people's intuitions about how much risk to take

而人们对于风险多寡的直觉，

varies depending on where they started with.

居然是来自一开始手上有多少筹码来决定。

So what's going on?

这是怎么回事？

Well, it turns out that this seems to be the result

嗯，这答案来自

of at least two biases that we have at the psychological level.

我们心理层面上的2项偏误。

One is that we have a really hard time thinking in absolute terms.

一个是我们没有足够的时间去计算绝对价值。

You really have to do work to figure out,

你应该要找时间好好考虑清楚，

well, one option's a thousand, 2,000;

一个选择是拿1000或2000，

one is 1,500.

一个是拿1500.

Instead, we find it very easy to think in very relative terms

相反的，如果选项改成相对价值的话，

as options change from one time to another.

就比较容易理清了。

So we think of things as, "Oh, I'm going to get more," or "Oh, I'm going to get less."

选项改成：“拿到更多”或“拿比较少”。

This is all well and good, except that

这样的话很好，只不过

changes in different directions

稍微改变一下手法，

actually effect whether or not we think

就会影响我们对于

options are good or not.

选项是好是坏的观感。

And this leads to the second bias,

这会引出第二项偏误，

which economists have called loss aversion.

经济学家称此为“损失规避”。

The idea is that we really hate it when things go into the red.

也就是说，我们会非常讨厌任何损失。

We really hate it when we have to lose out on some money.

我们会极度不愿意失去任何金钱。

And this means that sometimes we'll actually

这就意味着我们会转移我们的偏好

switch our preferences to avoid this.

来避免任何损失。

What you saw in that last scenario is that

刚刚在第二个情境里面，

subjects get risky

人们会选择冒险，

because they want the small shot that there won't be any loss.

因为不想放过任何“零损失”的机会。

That means when we're in a risk mindset --

这也点出了我们对于风险的心态——

excuse me, when we're in a loss mindset,

当我们进入“损失规避”模式时，

we actually become more risky,

我们会变得更喜欢风险，

which can actually be really worrying.

这就是最令人担心的部分。

These kinds of things play out in lots of bad ways in humans.

人类的负面行为也因此而暴露出来。

They're why stock investors hold onto losing stocks longer --

也是为什么股票投资者会死抱着不断下跌的股票，

because they're evaluating them in relative terms.

因为他们用相对价值来计算后得到的结论。

They're why people in the housing market refused to sell their house --

这也是为什么房市里的投资客不愿意卖掉房子，

because they don't want to sell at a loss.

因为他们不想要房子贬值的时候卖掉。

The question we were interested in

我们感兴趣的是

is whether the monkeys show the same biases.

猴子们是否也有同样的偏误。

If we set up those same scenarios in our little monkey market,

若我们在猴子市场里设计同样的问题，

would they do the same thing as people?

他们是否会表现出跟人一样的行为？

And so this is what we did, we gave the monkeys choices

所以我们让猴子在两个销售员间做选择，

between guys who were safe -- they did the same thing every time --

一个是安全的交易者，他会一直拿出同样的商品量；

or guys who were risky --

另一位是有风险的交易者，

they did things differently half the time.

他有一半的时间会拿出不同商品。

And then we gave them options that were bonuses --

我们提供有红利的选项——

like you guys did in the first scenario --

就像刚才的第一情境——

so they actually have a chance more,

因此猴子们同样也有机会拿到更多，

or pieces where they were experiencing losses --

或者碰到一些损失，

they actually thought they were going to get more than they really got.

实际上他们会觉得自己会拿到比较多的葡萄。

And so this is what this looks like.

这是实验的情景。

We introduced the monkeys to two new monkey salesmen.

我们将2为新的销售员介绍给猴子们。

The guy on the left and right both start with one piece of grape,

左边和右边一开始都是拿出1粒葡萄，

so it looks pretty good.

看起来很公平。

But they're going to give the monkeys bonuses.

但是这2位会给猴子们一些红利。

The guy on the left is a safe bonus.

左边提供的是安全红利。

All the time, he adds one, to give the monkeys two.

从头到尾，他会多给猴子1粒葡萄。

The guy on the right is actually a risky bonus.

右边的是提供风险红利。

Sometimes the monkeys get no bonus -- so this is a bonus of zero.

有时候猴子拿不到任何红利，所以他不会多拿任何葡萄。

Sometimes the monkeys get two extra.

但有时候猴子能多拿2粒葡萄。

For a big bonus, now they get three.

很棒的红利，所以猴子能一次拿3粒葡萄。

But this is the same choice you guys just faced.

这跟刚刚给各位的实验内容是一样的。

Do the monkeys actually want to play it safe

那么，猴子是会去选择有安全红利的交易，

and then go with the guy who's going to do the same thing on every trial,

就是那位每次交易都会提供同样东西的人；

or do they want to be risky

或者，他们会去选有风险的红利。

and try to get a risky, but big, bonus,

虽然要冒点险，有可能拿不到任何红利，

but risk the possibility of getting no bonus.

但是如果能拿到就赚翻了。

People here played it safe.

人类倾向选择安全的做法。

Turns out, the monkeys play it safe too.

结果，没想到猴子也会选择安全的一方。

Qualitatively and quantitatively,

在定性和定量研究里，

they choose exactly the same way as people,

在同样的测试内容中，

when tested in the same thing.

猴子与人类有一致的行为反应。

You might say, well, maybe the monkeys just don't like risk.

各位也许会觉得，可能是因为猴子不喜欢冒险。

Maybe we should see how they do with losses.

那么让我们来看看猴子面对损失时的行为。

And so we ran a second version of this.

于是我们就做了第二个版本的实验。

Now, the monkeys meet two guys

现在，猴子们会面对这两个销售员，

who aren't giving them bonuses;

他们不会再给猴子红利了；

they're actually giving them less than they expect.

他们会拿走猴子们预期的葡萄数。

So they look like they're starting out with a big amount.

所以他们一开始就拿出较多的葡萄。

These are three grapes; the monkey's really psyched for this.

一开始就拿出3粒葡萄：这是猴子最想看到的情形。

But now they learn these guys are going to give them less than they expect.

不过他们发现，这两个家伙会给比预期少的数量。

They guy on the left is a safe loss.

左边这位，他提供固定的损失量。

Every single time, he's going to take one of these away

每次他都会固定少给猴子一粒葡萄，

and give the monkeys just two.

也就是只给他们2粒。

the guy on the right is the risky loss.

右边这位提供有风险的损失量。

Sometimes he gives no loss, so the monkeys are really psyched,

有时候一个都不会少，完全符合猴子预期，

but sometimes he actually gives a big loss,

但有时候他会拿走更多，

taking away two to give the monkeys only one.

也就是只给猴子一粒葡萄。

And so what do the monkeys do?

猴子们会怎么决定？

Again, same choice; they can play it safe

和刚才一样，他们可以做保险的交易，

for always getting two grapes every single time,

每次交易都拿固定的2粒葡萄，

or they can take a risky bet and choose between one and three.

或者做有风险的交易，拿1粒或者3粒。

The remarkable thing to us is that, when you give monkeys this choice,

最让我们关注的是，当猴子们面对这个选择时，

they do the same irrational thing that people do.

他们表现出跟人类一样的非理性行为。

They actually become more risky

根据实验的起始条件，

depending on how the experimenters started.

猴子们变得倾向冒险。

This is crazy because it suggests that the monkeys too

这真是太不可思议了，

are evaluating things in relative terms

因为猴子居然也用相对价值来评估，

and actually treating losses differently than they treat gains.

而且在面对损失和面对收获时有着非常不同的行为。

So what does all of this mean?

这给我们什么启示？

Well, what we've shown is that, first of all,

我们先做归纳。首先，

we can actually give the monkeys a financial currency,

我们给猴子一种财务货币，

and they do very similar things with it.

然后教它们一些简单的交易行为，

They do some of the smart things we do,

它们会做出跟人类一样聪明的事情，

some of the kind of not so nice things we do,

也会做跟人类一样不太好的事情，

like steal it and so on.

比如偷钱之类的。

But they also do some of the irrational things we do.

同事它们也会做出跟人类一样非理性的行为。

They systematically get things wrong

它们有条理地做出错误行为，

and in the same ways that we do.

跟我们如出一辙。

This is the first take-home message of the Talk,

今天我想给各位的第一个结论，

which is that if you saw the beginning of this and you thought,

如果你只听到开头的部分，你可能会想——

oh, I'm totally going to go home and hire a capuchin monkey financial adviser.

我回家后真该雇佣一只卷尾猴当我的财务大臣。

They're way cuter than the one at ... you know --

这家伙的可爱程度超过家里的那位。。。

Don't do that; they're probably going to be just as dumb

但你可千万别这么做，因为这些猴子的糊涂程度

as the human one you already have.

跟你家里的那位差不多。

So, you know, a little bad -- Sorry, sorry, sorry.

这有点遗憾。各位听我说，

A little bad for monkey investors.

请猴子来当投资客不太好。

But of course, you know, the reason you're laughing is bad for humans too.

当然，偷笑的各位也觉得人一样不善于当投资客。

Because we've answered the question we started out with.

这问题的答案在刚才就已经证明给大家看了。

We wanted to know where these kinds of errors came from.

而我们为了想了解这些错误从何而来，

And we started with the hope that maybe we can

就抱着某些希望，像是

sort of tweak our financial institutions,

在某种程度上调整我们的金融机构，

tweak our technologies to make ourselves better.

或调整我们的财务方法让自己过得更好。

But what we've learn is that these biases might be a deeper part of us than that.

但我们已经了解到其实这两种偏误已经深深地影响了我们。

In fact, they might be due to the very nature

事实上，这些偏误之所以会影响我们这么深，

of our evolutionary history.

是因为它们老早就深植在我们的进化过程中。

You know, maybe it's not just humans

各位，也许笨蛋不只是

at the right side of this chain that's duncey.

图中这进化链中最右边的人类，

Maybe it's sort of duncey all the way back.

也许变笨蛋的来源是从古早就有了。

And this, if we believe the capuchin monkey results,

如果我们相信这些针对猴子的实验结果，

means that these duncey strategies

也就表示我们承认这种愚蠢对策，

might be 35 million years old.

早在3500万年前就出现了。

That's a long time for a strategy

这存在已久的对策

to potentially get changed around -- really, really old.

已经默默地影响我们很久。

What do we know about other old strategies like this?

我们对这类的对策了解多少？

Well, one thing we know is that they tend to be really hard to overcome.

我们了解的其中一个事实就是，我们很难去改变它。

You know, think of our evolutionary predilection

想一想我们最先进化的部分

for eating sweet things, fatty things like cheesecake.

就是懂得吃甜食、高脂肪的食物，如芝士蛋糕。

You can't just shut that off.

你没办法闭嘴不吃。

You can't just look at the dessert cart as say, "No, no, no. That looks disgusting to me."

你没办法对着装满推车的点心说：“我才不吃，这些令我作呕。”

We're just built differently.

但人与人之间存在着差异性。

We're going to perceive it as a good thing to go after.

我们会追求自己认为好的事物。

My guess is that the same thing is going to be true

所以我推测

when humans are perceiving

人们对于财务上的决策

different financial decisions.

也会有不同的认知见解。

When you're watching your stocks plummet into the red,

你会傻愣愣地看持有的股票价格直线下降，

when you're watching your house price go down,

或者看着自己持有的不动产贬值，

you're not going to be able to see that

而你不会去注意到事情的真相，

in anything but old evolutionary terms.

因为我们与生俱来就是有这样的行为。

This means that the biases

这种心理上的偏差

that lead investors to do badly,

会让投资者做出糟糕的决定，

that lead to the foreclosure crisis

所以像这次的次贷危机

are going to be really hard to overcome.

就变得很难去避免。

So that's the bad news. The question is: is there any good news?

听起来都是坏消息，哪有没有好消息呢？

I'm supposed to be up here telling you the good news.

我这里是有一些好消息告诉各位。

Well, the good news, I think,

我想这个好消息就是，

is what I started with at the beginning of the Talk,

就如同我在今天开头时所说，

which is that humans are not only smart;

人类不只是聪明而已；

we're really inspirationally smart

我们比起生物界里的其它动物，

to the rest of the animals in the biological kingdom.

都要聪明许多。

We're so good at overcoming our biological limitations --

我们非常擅长克服我们先天上的不足——

you know, I flew over here in an airplane.

就像我是搭飞机来这里，

I didn't have to try to flap my wings.

我不需要把手当翅膀拍动来飞。

I'm wearing contact lenses now so that I can see all of you.

我带着隐形眼镜就能看清楚各位，

I don't have to rely on my own near-sightedness.

不需要依赖我这双大近视的眼睛。

We actually have all of these cases

我们有这么多例子

where we overcome our biological limitations

都是用科技或其它方式来突破我们生物限制的事实，

through technology and other means, seemingly pretty easily.

让一切看起来是这么简单。

But we have to recognize that we have those limitations.

但我们也必须了解自己的极限在哪里，

And here's the rub.

而这是最难的地方。

It was Camus who once said that, "Man is the only species

就像卡谬曾说，

who refuses to be what he really is."

“人是唯一搞不清楚自己是什么的物种。”

But the irony is that

讽刺的是

it might only be in recognizing our limitations

我们得知道人类的极限在哪儿，

that we can really actually overcome them.

才能克服它们。

The hope is that you all will think about your limitations,

希望各位都能意识到自己的极限在哪儿，

not necessarily as unovercomable,

它并不是不可逾越的，

but to recognize them, accept them

了解它，接受它，

and then use the world of design to actually figure them out.

然后发展出让世人更了解人类极限的工具。

That might be the only way that we will really be able

想要能激发出人类潜力，

to achieve our own human potential

同时成为那种我们心里想成为的高贵物种，

and really be the noble species we hope to all be.

这也许是唯一的办法。

Thank you.

谢谢各位。

(Applause)

（掌声）