Why we make bad decisions | Dan Gilbert

翻译人员: tian zeng 校对人员: Vivian Lee

We all make decisions every day; we want to know

大家每天都在做决定；谁都想知道

what the right thing is to do -- in domains from the financial

如何做正确的决定——无论是金融、

to the gastronomic to the professional to the romantic.

烹饪，还是职业、爱情方面。

And surely, if somebody could really tell us how to do

那么，如果有人能指导我们

exactly the right thing at all possible times,

每次都做出正确的决定，

那将是一个非常了不起的才能。

that would be a tremendous gift.

其实，早在1738年， 世人就见识过了拥有这项才能的人，

It turns out that, in fact, the world was given this gift in 1738

by a Dutch polymath named Daniel Bernoulli.

他是荷兰学者丹尼尔·伯努利 （Daniel Bernoulli）。

And what I want to talk to you about today is what that gift is,

今天我们就来讲讲 这是怎样一种才能，

and I also want to explain to you why it is

我还会告诉你为什么即使知道

that it hasn't made a damn bit of difference.

其中的道理，也不会事事顺利。

Now, this is Bernoulli's gift. This is a direct quote.

这就是伯努利的思路， 最原始的表述。

如果这看起来像希腊文字，是因为， 嗯，这确实是希腊字母。

And if it looks like Greek to you, it's because, well, it's Greek.

But the simple English translation -- much less precise,

虽然翻译成英语后 没有原文那样精确，

but it captures the gist of what Bernoulli had to say -- was this:

但基本上诠释了伯努利的 主要思想——那就是:

The expected value of any of our actions --

我们任何行为的预估价值——

that is, the goodness that we can count on getting --

或者说期望能得到的好处——

is the product of two simple things:

是两样东西的乘积：

the odds that this action will allow us to gain something,

一个是成功的概率，

and the value of that gain to us.

另一个是成功所带来的价值。

In a sense, what Bernoulli was saying is,

从某种程度上说， 伯努利想表达的是

if we can estimate and multiply these two things,

如果我们能预估 这两个因素并将其相乘，

we will always know precisely how we should behave.

我们就总能够 预测自己的行为。

Now, this simple equation, even for those of you

而这个简单的等式， 即使对于你们中间

who don't like equations, is something that you're quite used to.

不喜欢等式的人来说， 也是非常容易理解的。

Here's an example: if I were to tell you, let's play

举个例子：假如我告诉你，

a little coin toss game, and I'm going to flip a coin,

我们来猜硬币，我扔一枚硬币，

and if it comes up heads, I'm going to pay you 10 dollars,

人头朝上，我输你10美元，

but you have to pay four dollars for the privilege of playing with me,

但你必须先付给我4美元才能玩。

most of you would say, sure, I'll take that bet. Because you know

很多人会说，好啊，我跟你玩。 因为你知道

that the odds of you winning are one half, the gain if you do is 10 dollars,

你有50%的赢面， 而赢了能得到10美元，

that multiplies to five, and that's more

两者相乘得5，

要比你付的4美元多， 所以当然要玩儿。

than I'm charging you to play. So, the answer is, yes.

This is what statisticians technically call a damn fine bet.

统计学家们称之为“完美赌局”。

Now, the idea is simple when we're applying it to coin tosses,

在丢硬币的游戏中，道理很简单。

but in fact, it's not very simple in everyday life.

然而在日常生活中 就没那么简单了。

People are horrible at estimating both of these things,

人们预估这两件事情的 水平都很差。

and that's what I want to talk to you about today.

而这正是我今天要讲的。

There are two kinds of errors people make when trying to decide

人们做决策时

what the right thing is to do, and those are

会犯两种错误，

errors in estimating the odds that they're going to succeed,

即错误地估算成功的概率，

and errors in estimating the value of their own success.

和错误地估算成功的价值。

Now, let me talk about the first one first.

我们先说第一种错误。

计算成功的概率貌似比较容易：

Calculating odds would seem to be something rather easy:

there are six sides to a die, two sides to a coin, 52 cards in a deck.

1个骰子6个面、一个硬币2个面， 一叠扑克52张。

You all know what the likelihood is of pulling the ace of spades

谁都知道抽到黑桃A， 或者丢硬币

人头朝上的概率。

or of flipping a heads.

But as it turns out, this is not a very easy idea to apply

然而事实证明， 实际情况似乎没有那么简单。

in everyday life. That's why Americans spend more --

这也就是为什么美国人 在赌博上的花费——

更确切地说是赌博输掉的钱——

I should say, lose more -- gambling

than on all other forms of entertainment combined.

比其它所有娱乐活动 花费的总和还多。

其原因就是， 概率并不是人们计算的那样。

The reason is, this isn't how people do odds.

人们如何计算概率呢？

The way people figure odds

requires that we first talk a bit about pigs.

说到这里我们先要 讨论一个关于猪的问题。

Now, the question I'm going to put to you is whether you think

这个问题就是，你们觉得

there are more dogs or pigs on leashes

任意一天，在牛津镇上

observed in any particular day in Oxford.

被链子拴着的狗更多， 还是猪更多？

And of course, you all know that the answer is dogs.

你们都会说：当然狗更多。

And the way that you know that the answer is dogs is

大家得出这个狗比猪多的 结论是因为

you quickly reviewed in memory the times

你们迅速回忆以前

you've seen dogs and pigs on leashes.

曾经见过的被拴着的狗和猪，

It was very easy to remember seeing dogs,

很容易就想起见过狗，

但好像没怎么见过猪。 所以每个人都会假设

not so easy to remember pigs. And each one of you assumed

that if dogs on leashes came more quickly to your mind,

既然能快速地想起见过狗，

那被拴着的狗就应该更多些。

then dogs on leashes are more probable.

That's not a bad rule of thumb, except when it is.

凭经验判断通常是对的， 但有时候却行不通。

So, for example, here's a word puzzle.

再拿猜字游戏举个例子。

Are there more four-letter English words

哪种4个字母的单词更多，

with R in the third place or R in the first place?

R是其中的第三个字母， 还是第一个？

Well, you check memory very briefly, make a quick scan,

你又开始迅速回忆，

and it's awfully easy to say to yourself, Ring, Rang, Rung,

很容易想到 Ring，Rang，Rung，

and very hard to say to yourself, Pare, Park: they come more slowly.

很难回忆出，Pare, Park： 至少要慢很多。

But in fact, there are many more words in the English language

但实际上，在英文中更多的是

with R in the third than the first place.

第三个字母是R的单词。

The reason words with R in the third place come slowly to your mind

想到这些单词要慢一些，

isn't because they're improbable, unlikely or infrequent.

并不是因为它们不重要、不常见，

It's because the mind recalls words by their first letter.

而是因为我们的大脑是 根据首字母回忆单词的。

You kind of shout out the sound, S -- and the word comes.

你发出一个S音—— 就能想起一大串单词来。

It's like the dictionary;

就像字典一样；

it's hard to look things up by the third letter.

而根据第3个字母去查单词 往往很难。

So, this is an example of how this idea that

所以这是一个例子，

the quickness with which things come to mind

关于大脑的反应速度

can give you a sense of their probability --

能暗示你某件事概率的大小——

how this idea could lead you astray. It's not just puzzles, though.

这个结果将把你引向错误的道路。 而且不仅限于填字游戏。

例如，当美国人被要求预测

For example, when Americans are asked to estimate the odds

that they will die in a variety of interesting ways --

各种各样匪夷所思的死法 发生的几率——

these are estimates of number of deaths per year

估计每年每2亿美国人

per 200 million U.S. citizens.

当中的死亡人数。

And these are just ordinary people like yourselves who are asked

这些被调查者都是 跟你我一样的普通人，

to guess how many people die from tornado, fireworks, asthma, drowning, etc.

要猜测因以下原因死亡的人数： 飓风、烟火、哮喘、溺水。

Compare these to the actual numbers.

然后和真实发生的数据对比。

Now, you see a very interesting pattern here, which is first of all,

一个非常有意思的现象出现了， 首先

two things are vastly over-estimated, namely tornadoes and fireworks.

两项数据大大超过实际值： 飓风和烟火。

Two things are vastly underestimated:

两项数据又被大大地低估了：

dying by drowning and dying by asthma. Why?

即死于溺水和哮喘病。 为什么呢？

When was the last time that you picked up a newspaper

你什么时候在报纸的头版上读到过

and the headline was, "Boy dies of Asthma?"

“男童死于哮喘”？

It's not interesting because it's so common.

这条新闻非常无趣， 因为它太常见了。

It's very easy for all of us to bring to mind instances

而大家却很容易想起来

of news stories or newsreels where we've seen

曾经看过的电视或者新闻中报道

tornadoes devastating cities, or some poor schmuck

飓风摧毁城市，或者某个倒霉鬼

who's blown his hands off with a firework on the Fourth of July.

在国庆日被烟火崩掉了手。

Drownings and asthma deaths don't get much coverage.

因为对溺水、哮喘报道的不多。

They don't come quickly to mind, and as a result,

在我们头脑中的印象不深， 所以

we vastly underestimate them.

我们大大低估了这些事件。

Indeed, this is kind of like the Sesame Street game

实际上，这就好像“芝麻街” 游戏中的这个问题：

of "Which thing doesn't belong?" And you're right to say

“以下哪个选项与其他不同？” 理所应当你会觉得

游泳池跟其它的都不一样， 因为游泳池

it's the swimming pool that doesn't belong, because the swimming pool

其实是最最危险的场所！

is the only thing on this slide that's actually very dangerous.

你们在游泳池中死亡的概率

The way that more of you are likely to die than the combination

of all three of the others that you see on the slide.

比其它三个的总和还高。

The lottery is an excellent example, of course -- an excellent test-case

买彩票是一个绝佳案例—— 可以很好地测试人们

of people's ability to compute probabilities.

计算概率的能力。

And economists -- forgive me, for those of you who play the lottery --

经济学家——你们中间买彩票的人 请原谅我这么说——

but economists, at least among themselves, refer to the lottery

至少经济学家们， 认为买彩票是一种

as a stupidity tax, because the odds of getting any payoff

为愚蠢交的税，因为买彩票

by investing your money in a lottery ticket

中大奖的几率，

are approximately equivalent to flushing the money

几乎和你直接用马桶

directly down the toilet -- which, by the way,

把钱冲掉是一样的——

doesn't require that you actually go to the store and buy anything.

起码这样还不用你费力 跑到商店去买一趟。

Why in the world would anybody ever play the lottery?

究竟为什么还有人买彩票呢？

Well, there are many answers, but one answer surely is,

有很多种解释， 但其中有一个一定是

we see a lot of winners. Right? When this couple wins the lottery,

我们看到了很多赢家，对吗？ 有一对夫妇中了头彩，

or Ed McMahon shows up at your door with this giant check --

或者Ed McMahon在你家门口， 拿着巨大的一张支票——

how the hell do you cash things that size, I don't know.

我完全想不出要怎么花掉这笔钱。

We see this on TV; we read about it in the paper.

我们在电视里面看到过； 在报纸上也看到过。

When was the last time that you saw extensive interviews

但你什么时候看到大规模采访

with everybody who lost?

买彩票输了的人？

Indeed, if we required that television stations run

实际上，如果我们要求电视台 在采访每个赢家的同时，

a 30-second interview with each loser

对每位没有中彩的人来一个

every time they interview a winner, the 100 million losers

30秒的采访，那么这1亿位

in the last lottery would require nine-and-a-half years

上一个彩票开奖后的输家

of your undivided attention just to watch them say,

将要花9.5年的时间 不断地告诉你说：

"Me? I lost." "Me? I lost."

“我，输了”，“我，输了”……

Now, if you watch nine-and-a-half years of television --

如果你看了九年半的电视——

no sleep, no potty breaks -- and you saw loss after loss after loss,

不休不眠—— 看到一个接一个的输家，

然后最后的30秒钟有一个 “我赢了！”

and then at the end there's 30 seconds of, "and I won,"

the likelihood that you would play the lottery is very small.

你买彩票的可能性就会小很多。

Look, I can prove this to you: here's a little lottery.

现在我证明给你们看： 这里有一个小彩票游戏。

There's 10 tickets in this lottery.

一共10张。

Nine of them have been sold to these individuals.

其中的9张已经卖给了不同的人

It costs you a dollar to buy the ticket and, if you win,

1张彩票1美元，如果你赢了，

you get 20 bucks. Is this a good bet?

你将得到20美元。 这个赌局怎么样？

Well, Bernoulli tells us it is.

按照伯努利的逻辑，

The expected value of this lottery is two dollars;

这个彩票的期望回报是2美元：

this is a lottery in which you should invest your money.

那么你应该去买。

而且大多数人都会说， “嗯，我要买”

And most people say, "OK, I'll play."

Now, a slightly different version of this lottery:

现在我稍稍改变一下条件：

imagine that the nine tickets are all owned

设想其它9张彩票都卖给了

by one fat guy named Leroy.

一个叫Leroy的胖子。

Leroy has nine tickets; there's one left.

Leroy有9张，还剩下1张。

Do you want it? Most people won't play this lottery.

你买不买？ 大多数人不会买。

Now, you can see the odds of winning haven't changed,

其实赢的几率并没有变，

but it's now fantastically easy to imagine who's going to win.

但很容易就能看出谁会赢。

It's easy to see Leroy getting the check, right?

显然Leroy会赢，对吗？

You can't say to yourself, "I'm as likely to win as anybody,"

你现在不敢说， “我和其它人一样有机会赢”，

because you're not as likely to win as Leroy.

显然你的赢面不可能和Leroy一样。

The fact that all those tickets are owned by one guy

所有彩票都被一个人买走的事实

changes your decision to play,

改变了你的决定，

即使这对概率丝毫没有影响。

even though it does nothing whatsoever to the odds.

Now, estimating odds, as difficult as it may seem, is a piece of cake

估算概率也许看起来比较复杂， 但是相对于

compared to trying to estimate value:

估算价值来说却是小巫见大巫了。

trying to say what something is worth, how much we'll enjoy it,

估算价值即试图说出某东西的价值， 我们有多喜欢它。

how much pleasure it will give us.

它给我带来多少快乐。

I want to talk now about errors in value.

我想多谈谈估值的误差。

How much is this Big Mac worth? Is it worth 25 dollars?

麦当劳的一个“巨无霸”值多少钱？ 值25美元吗？

Most of you have the intuition that it's not --

大家的直觉都是“不值”——

you wouldn't pay that for it.

你不会花那么多钱去买它。

But in fact, to decide whether a Big Mac is worth 25 dollars requires

然而，决定一个“巨无霸” 是否值25美元的前提

that you ask one, and only one question, which is:

是你要问且只问一个问题：

我还能用这25美元做什么？

What else can I do with 25 dollars?

If you've ever gotten on one of those long-haul flights to Australia

如果你曾经坐过长途飞机 去澳大利亚，

and realized that they're not going to serve you any food,

而且你知道飞机上不提供食物，

but somebody in the row in front of you has just opened

当坐在你前排的人打开了一个

the McDonald's bag, and the smell of golden arches

麦当劳的盒子，那诱人的香味

is wafting over the seat, you think,

飘过椅背传到你鼻子里，你会觉得

I can't do anything else with this 25 dollars for 16 hours.

这16小时里25美元做不了其它事情，

我甚至不能把它烧掉—— 过安检的时候打火机被没收了！

I can't even set it on fire -- they took my cigarette lighter!

Suddenly, 25 dollars for a Big Mac might be a good deal.

突然间，花25美元买一个“巨无霸”汉堡 成了一笔划算的买卖。

On the other hand, if you're visiting an underdeveloped country,

反过来， 如果你去一个贫穷的国家，

and 25 dollars buys you a gourmet meal, it's exorbitant for a Big Mac.

花25美元就可以买一顿丰盛的晚餐， 那么“巨无霸”就显得贵得离谱了。

Why were you all sure that the answer to the question was no,

那为什么大家在我说出 特定条件之间

before I'd even told you anything about the context?

都认为答案应该是“不”呢？

Because most of you compared the price of this Big Mac

因为大家在比较

to the price you're used to paying. Rather than asking,

从前买的“巨无霸”的价格， 而不是问自己一个问题，

"What else can I do with my money," comparing this investment

“我还能用这些钱做什么？”，

to other possible investments, you compared to the past.

与其它可能的消费比较， 你比较的是“过去”。

And this is a systematic error people make.

这是人们很容易犯的常规性错误。

What you knew is, you paid three dollars in the past; 25 is outrageous.

你想的是，曾经花3美元买巨无霸， 现在要花25美元，简直是岂有此理。

This is an error, and I can prove it to you by showing

这是错误的，我可以给大家证明

the kinds of irrationalities to which it leads.

这个错误所导致的非理性行为。

For example, this is, of course,

例如，当然了，

one of the most delicious tricks in marketing,

这是一个在市场营销中 非常常见的把戏，

is to say something used to be higher,

告诉你一样东西曾经非常贵，

and suddenly it seems like a very good deal.

然后买下这个东西就显得很划算。

When people are asked about these two different jobs:

我们做过一个试验， 考察人们对两种工作的看法：

a job where you make 60K, then 50K, then 40K,

一个工作承诺你第一年6万， 然后5万，4万，

这个工作每年都会减薪，

a job where you're getting a salary cut each year,

and one in which you're getting a salary increase,

而另一个工作则承诺你加薪，

people like the second job better than the first, despite the fact

人们会更希望得到第二个工作， 即使知道

they're all told they make much less money. Why?

这个工作挣得少一些，为什么呢？

Because they had the sense that declining wages are worse

因为他们觉得减薪比加薪糟糕，

than rising wages, even when the total amount of wages is higher

即使减薪期间的总收入更高。

in the declining period. Here's another nice example.

另外一个例子。

Here's a $2,000 Hawaiian vacation package; it's now on sale for 1,600.

有一个2000美元的夏威夷度假套餐， 现在只卖1600美元

Assuming you wanted to go to Hawaii, would you buy this package?

假设你想去夏威夷， 你会不会买这个产品？

Most people say they would. Here's a slightly different story:

大多数人是会的。 现在稍稍改变一下，

$2,000 Hawaiian vacation package is now on sale for 700 dollars,

2000美元的夏威夷度假套餐 现在只卖700美元，

你决定再考虑一个礼拜。

so you decide to mull it over for a week.

By the time you get to the ticket agency, the best fares are gone --

但后来你去旅行社的时候， 最好的价格已经没有了——

the package now costs 1,500. Would you buy it? Most people say, no.

现在需要1500美元。你会买么？ 很多人都会说：不会！

Why? Because it used to cost 700, and there's no way I'm paying 1,500

为什么？因为曾经只卖700， 而我绝不会花1500

for something that was 700 last week.

买上周还是700的旅游产品。

This tendency to compare to the past

这种”比较过去“的倾向

is causing people to pass up the better deal. In other words,

使人们放弃了很多好交易， 换句话说，

a good deal that used to be a great deal is not nearly as good

一个从前有更好价格的交易即使 现在仍然是一个好交易，也不如

as an awful deal that was once a horrible deal.

一个曾经更烂的差交易能打动人。

Here's another example of how comparing to the past

还有一个例子， 说明“比较过去”如何

can befuddle our decisions.

迷惑了我们的眼睛。

假设你要去剧场看表演。

Imagine that you're going to the theater.

在去剧场的路上，

You're on your way to the theater.

In your wallet you have a ticket, for which you paid 20 dollars.

你钱包里有一张票， 是花20美元买的。

You also have a 20-dollar bill.

你还有一张20美金的纸币。

When you arrive at the theater,

当你到达剧场的时候

发现你在路上把票搞丢了。

you discover that somewhere along the way you've lost the ticket.

Would you spend your remaining money on replacing it?

你会花剩下的钱再去买一张么？

Most people answer, no.

很多人会说，不会！

Now, let's just change one thing in this scenario.

现在，我只改变一个条件。

You're on your way to the theater,

你在去剧场的路上，

and in your wallet you have two 20-dollar bills.

你钱包里有两张20美元。

When you arrive you discover you've lost one of them.

到达剧场的时候发现丢了一张。

Would you spend your remaining 20 dollars on a ticket?

你会不会拿剩下的20美元去买票？

Well, of course, I went to the theater to see the play.

当然会！我去剧院就是要看戏的。

What does the loss of 20 dollars along the way have to do?

跟我在路上丢没丢20美元没关系。

Now, just in case you're not getting it,

如果你还没明白我的意思，

here's a schematic of what happened, OK?

还有另一种简单的解释。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Along the way, you lost something.

在路上，你丢了一样东西。

In both cases, it was a piece of paper.

在两种情况下， 这个东西都是一张纸。

In one case, it had a U.S. president on it; in the other case it didn't.

一张纸上有美国总统头像， 另一张没有。

What the hell difference should it make?

这到底有什么区别？

The difference is that when you lost the ticket you say to yourself,

区别就是，当你丢了票的时候， 你会这样对自己说，

I'm not paying twice for the same thing.

”我不会为买样东西花双份的钱。“

You compare the cost of the play now -- 40 dollars --

你将现在的花费——40美元——

to the cost that it used to have -- 20 dollars -- and you say it's a bad deal.

和原来20美元相比，会觉得不值。

Comparing with the past causes many of the problems

比较过去会导致很多问题，

that behavioral economists and psychologists identify

行为经济学家和心理学家 认为这些问题

in people's attempts to assign value.

会影响人们对价值的估算。

But even when we compare with the possible, instead of the past,

但即使不”比较过去“， 而去比较其它的可能，

we still make certain kinds of mistakes.

我们还是会犯类似的错误。

And I'm going to show you one or two of them.

举几个例子。

One of the things we know about comparison:

“比较”有一个特点：

that when we compare one thing to the other, it changes its value.

当一样东西和另一样东西比较时， 它的价值会改变。

So in 1992, this fellow, George Bush, for those of us who were

所以在1992年的时候，乔治布什， 对于我们这些

kind of on the liberal side of the political spectrum,

政治上站在自由主义一边的人来说，

他好像不是一个理想的人物。

didn't seem like such a great guy.

Suddenly, we're almost longing for him to return.

突然间，我们又非常盼着他复出。

（笑声）

(Laughter)

The comparison changes how we evaluate him.

"比较"改变了我们对他的看法。

Now, retailers knew this long before anybody else did, of course,

当然，零售商们早就 懂得这个道理，

and they use this wisdom to help you --

他们利用这一点使你——

spare you the undue burden of money.

不知不觉花掉更多的钱。

And so a retailer, if you were to go into a wine shop

当你走进一家红酒零售店，

and you had to buy a bottle of wine,

要买一瓶红酒，

and you see them here for eight, 27 and 33 dollars, what would you do?

你看到了红酒的价钱： 8、27和33美元，你会怎样做？

Most people don't want the most expensive,

大多数人不会买最贵的，

they don't want the least expensive.

也不会买最便宜的。

所以他们选择价格适中的。

So, they will opt for the item in the middle.

If you're a smart retailer, then, you will put a very expensive item

如果你是一个聪明的零售商， 就会放一个最贵的商品在架上

that nobody will ever buy on the shelf,

即使根本没人买，

because suddenly the $33 wine doesn't look as expensive in comparison.

因为相比之下33美元的红酒 就显得没那么贵了。

其实这些你们早就知道了：

So I'm telling you something you already knew:

namely, that comparison changes the value of things.

“比较”可以改变价值。

但问题在哪里呢？

Here's why that's a problem:

the problem is that when you get that $33 bottle of wine home,

问题就出在： 你把这瓶33美元的红酒带回家后，

it won't matter what it used to be sitting on the shelf next to.

它的价值跟原来 放在旁边的酒没有关系。

The comparisons we make when we are appraising value,

当初为估量价值而做的比较，

where we're trying to estimate how much we'll like things,

即我们试图决定 我们有多喜欢一样东西，

are not the same comparisons we'll be making when we consume them.

当我们在使用它的时候， 这种比较早已不复存在了。

This problem of shifting comparisons can bedevil

这个“比较转移”的问题

our attempts to make rational decisions.

影响了我们的理性决策。

Let me just give you an example.

再举一个例子。

I have to show you something from my own lab, so let me sneak this in.

我要给大家看一个 我们自己做的实验。

These are subjects coming to an experiment to be asked

这些实验对象们

the simplest of all questions:

被问到一个最简单的问题：

How much will you enjoy eating potato chips one minute from now?

一分钟之后你会有 多享受这包薯片？

They're sitting in a room with potato chips in front of them.

实验对象坐在房间里， 前面放着一些薯片。

For some of the subjects, sitting in the far corner of a room

对于这些实验对象，他们所在 房间的另一个角落，还放着

is a box of Godiva chocolates, and for others is a can of Spam.

一盒Godiva巧克力， 或者一罐Spam午餐肉。

In fact, these items that are sitting in the room change

事实上，这些角落里的东西改变了

how much the subjects think they're going to enjoy the potato chips.

试验者对薯片的预期享受程度。

Namely, those who are looking at Spam

也就是说，这些看到午餐肉的人

think potato chips are going to be quite tasty;

会觉得薯条非常美味；

those who are looking at Godiva chocolate

而看到巧克力的人

think they won't be nearly so tasty.

觉得薯片不会很美味。

Of course, what happens when they eat the potato chips?

然而，当他们吃薯条的时候 会怎样呢？

Well, look, you didn't need a psychologist to tell you that

显然，不需要心理学家告诉你，

当你嘴里都是焦香四溢， 脆脆的美味薯片的时候

when you have a mouthful of greasy, salty, crispy, delicious snacks,

what's sitting in the corner of the room

在屋子的角落放着什么

makes not a damn bit of difference to your gustatory experience.

根本不会影响你的味觉。

Nonetheless, their predictions are perverted by a comparison

然而在吃之前， 人们对食物的预期被“比较”迷惑了，

that then does not carry through and change their experience.

而这种“比较”在我们吃的过程中 是完全不存在的。

You've all experienced this yourself, even if you've never come

大家都亲身经历过类似的事情， 即使你以前没有

into our lab to eat potato chips. So here's a question:

来过我的实验室吃薯片。 那我现在有一个问题：

You want to buy a car stereo.

你想买一个汽车音响。

The dealer near your house sells this particular stereo for 200 dollars,

你家附近的经销商卖200美元，

but if you drive across town, you can get it for 100 bucks.

但如果你开车穿过市区， 只要100美元就能买个一样的。

So would you drive to get 50 percent off, saving 100 dollars?

你会为了节省100美元 开车去买这个五折的音响吗？

Most people say they would.

多数人都会。

They can't imagine buying it for twice the price

他们不能想象多花一倍的钱

when, with one trip across town, they can get it for half off.

去买一个在城市的另一端 只要半价的东西。

Now, let's imagine instead you wanted to buy a car that had a stereo,

现在我再假设你想 买一辆有音响的车，

你家旁边的经销商卖31000美元。

and the dealer near your house had it for 31,000.

But if you drove across town, you could get it for 30,900.

同样开车穿过市区， 只要30900块，

Would you drive to get it? At this point, 0.003 savings -- the 100 dollars.

你会去么？这次你节省了0.3%—— 也是100美元。

Most people say, no, I'm going to schlep across town

很多人会说，不。 我才不会开车穿过拥堵的市区

to save 100 bucks on the purchase of a car?

就为了节省100美元去买一辆车。

This kind of thinking drives economists crazy, and it should.

这种想法令经济学家们抓狂， 而也确实应该这样。

因为你节省下来的这100美元 ——拜托！——

Because this 100 dollars that you save -- hello! --

根本无关是怎么节省出来的。

doesn't know where it came from.

它并不知道是通过 买什么东西节省下来的。

It doesn't know what you saved it on.

When you go to buy groceries with it, it doesn't go,

你去超市买东西的时候， 它不会说，

I'm the money saved on the car stereo, or,

”我是从汽车音响节省下来的，或者，

I'm the dumb money saved on the car. It's money.

我是一个笨蛋在买车时省下来的。“ 钱就是钱！

如果开车穿过市区值100美元， 就是值100美元

And if a drive across town is worth 100 bucks, it's worth 100 bucks

不管你是通过什么方式节省下来的。 可是人们并不这么认为。

no matter what you're saving it on. People don't think that way.

That's why they don't know whether their mutual fund manager

这就是为什么人们不关心基金经理

is taking 0.1 percent or 0.15 percent of their investment,

从他们的投资中拿0.1% 还是0.15%的佣金，

但是他们会收集折扣券， 就为了买牙膏的时候少花1美元。

but they clip coupons to save one dollar off of toothpaste.

Now, you can see, this is the problem of shifting comparisons,

现在你看到了， 也是“转移比较”的问题。

because what you're doing is, you're comparing the 100 bucks

因为你在比较100美元

to the purchase that you're making,

和你要买的东西之间的关系。

but when you go to spend that money you won't be making that comparison.

而当你去花这笔钱的时候， 你不会再做那样的比较了。

You've all had this experience.

你们都有过这样的经历。

If you're an American, for example, you've probably traveled in France.

举个例子，如果你是一个美国人， 去法国旅游。

在那儿可能会遇到一对夫妇，

And at some point you may have met a couple

from your own hometown, and you thought,

跟你是老乡，你会想

"Oh, my God, these people are so warm. They're so nice to me.

”天呐！这些人真热情。 他们对我太好了。

I mean, compared to all these people who hate me

比起那些讨厌我试着说法语，

when I try to speak their language and hate me more when I don't,

还更讨厌我不说法语的当地人，

这对夫妇简直太好了。“ 所以你和他们一起游历法国，

these people are just wonderful." And so you tour France with them,

and then you get home and you invite them over for dinner,

之后你回到家， 邀请这对夫妇来家里吃饭，

and what do you find?

现在的感觉呢？

Compared to your regular friends,

和你的其它朋友相比，

他们又无聊又闷，对吗？ 因为处在新的环境里，

they are boring and dull, right? Because in this new context,

the comparison is very, very different. In fact, you find yourself

这种比较大不一样了。 实际上你发现

你对他们的讨厌程度简直都 够资格申请法国国籍了。

disliking them enough almost to qualify for French citizenship.

Now, you have exactly the same problem when you shop for a stereo.

其实，如果你去买音响， 也会遇上同样的问题。

You go to the stereo store, you see two sets of speakers --

你去到一个音响商店， 你看到了两款扬声器——

these big, boxy, monoliths, and these little, sleek speakers,

一款是又大又方像石头的， 一款是小巧玲珑外表光滑的，

and you play them, and you go, you know, I do hear a difference:

然后你都试了一下， 觉得确实听到了它们的区别：

the big ones sound a little better.

大的那个听起来好一些。

And so you buy them, and you bring them home,

于是你付了钱，把音响带回家，

and you entirely violate the décor of your house.

而根本不在乎彻底破坏了 家里的装饰风格。

And the problem, of course, is that this comparison you made in the store

问题在于， 你在音响商店做的“比较”

is a comparison you'll never make again.

回家之后永远不可能再发生。

What are the odds that years later you'll turn on the stereo and go,

你不会再回到那个音响商店说：

"Sounds so much better than those little ones,"

“大的听起来就是比那些小的好，”

which you can't even remember hearing.

“小的”效果如何 你自己可能都不记得了。

The problem of shifting comparisons is even more difficult

“比较转移”的问题在跨越时间的

when these choices are arrayed over time.

某些情况下显得更复杂。

People have a lot of trouble making decisions

关于不同时间点发生的几件事，

about things that will happen at different points in time.

人们在做决策时往往 显得尤其困难。

And what psychologists and behavioral economists have discovered

心理学家和行为经济学家发现

is that by and large people use two simple rules.

大体上来讲有两个简单的原则。

So let me give you one very easy problem, a second very easy problem

现在我先连续给你 两个非常简单的问题，

and then a third, hard, problem.

最后是一个困难的问题。

Here's the first easy problem:

第一个简单问题是：

给你60或者50美元，你要哪个？

You can have 60 dollars now or 50 dollars now. Which would you prefer?

This is what we call a one-item IQ test, OK?

这个叫做单项智商测验。

All of us, I hope, prefer more money, and the reason is,

大家都想要更多的钱，

we believe more is better than less.

因为我们认为多比少好。

Here's the second problem:

第二个问题来了。

You can have 60 dollars today or 60 dollars in a month. Which would you prefer?

你可以今天或者在一个月后 得到60美元，你选哪个？

Again, an easy decision,

同样的，非常简单的决策。

because we all know that now is better than later.

因为我们知道"现在"比"以后"好。

当这两条规则相互冲突时， 困难来了。

What's hard in our decision-making is when these two rules conflict.

For example, when you're offered 50 dollars now or 60 dollars in a month.

例如，现在得到50美元或者 一个月后得到60美元，你选哪个？

This typifies a lot of situations in life in which you will gain

生活中有很多类似情况，

by waiting, but you have to be patient.

想得到就必须等待，要有耐心。

What do we know? What do people do in these kinds of situations?

那么人们在这样的情形下 会怎么做呢？

Well, by and large people are enormously impatient.

多数情况下，人们很缺乏耐心。

That is, they require interest rates in the hundred

也就是说他们会要求很高的利息

or thousands of percents in order to delay gratification

才能推迟他们的满足感，

and wait until next month for the extra 10 dollars.

而等到下个月去获得额外的10美元。

Maybe that isn't so remarkable, but what is remarkable is

也许这个还不足为奇， 但是奇怪的是

让人们变得有耐心是如此容易， 只要改变一下

how easy it is to make this impatience go away by simply changing

when the delivery of these monetary units will happen.

给钱的时间。

Imagine that you can have 50 dollars in a year -- that's 12 months --

假设你可以一年之后获得50美元 ——那是12个月，

or 60 dollars in 13 months.

或者13个月之后获得60美元。

What do we find now?

我们得到了什么结果？

People are gladly willing to wait: as long as they're waiting 12,

人们开始愿意等待了， 既然他们已经等了12个月，

they might as well wait 13.

多等1个月也无妨。

What makes this dynamic inconsistency happen?

是什么让决策不一致了呢？

Comparison. Troubling comparison. Let me show you.

比较！麻烦的比较。 我来给大家解释一下。

This is just a graph showing the results that I just suggested

这是我刚刚提到的 那个结果的数据图。

you would show if I gave you time to respond, which is,

如果我给大家足够时间去思考， 你们得到的结论就是，

people find that the subjective value of 50 is higher

人们发现主观上现在的50美元要比

than the subjective value of 60 when they'll be delivered in now

未来的60美元更有价值，

or one month, respectively -- a 30-day delay --

虽然仅仅是30天的差别——

but they show the reverse pattern when you push the entire decision

然而当我们把决策时间推迟1年，

off into the future a year.

他们表现出了完全相反的 行为模式。

Now, why in the world do you get this pattern of results?

那么，为什么你会看到 这样的结果呢？

这两个人可以帮我们解释。

These guys can tell us.

What you see here are two lads,

大家看到的是两个小伙子，

其中一个比另外一个块头大些： 消防员和小提琴家。

one of them larger than the other: the fireman and the fiddler.

They are going to recede towards the vanishing point in the horizon,

他们要往后退直到消失，

and I want you to notice two things.

我希望大家注意两样东西。

At no point will the fireman look taller than the fiddler. No point.

这个消防员是永远不可能比 小提琴家小的，绝对不会。

However, the difference between them seems to be getting smaller.

然而，他们之间的差距 却是越来越小的。

First it's an inch in your view, then it's a quarter-inch,

刚开始你看到一英寸的差距， 然后是四分之三，

then a half-inch, and then finally they go off the edge of the earth.

然后是半英寸， 最终他们从地平线上消失了。

Here are the results of what I just showed you.

这就是我刚刚给大家看的结果。

这是主观高度——

This is the subjective height --

the height you saw of these guys at various points.

即你在不同阶段看到的高度。

And I want you to see that two things are true.

现在我想让你看到， 有两样东西是真的。

One, the farther away they are, the smaller they look;

第一，他们离我们越远， 看起来越小。

and two, the fireman is always bigger than the fiddler.

第二，消防队员总是比 小提琴师高。

But watch what happens when we make some of them disappear. Right.

但是当我们让一些东西 消失之后发生了什么？

如果我们非常近距离观察， 小提琴师要比消防队员更高大，

At a very close distance, the fiddler looks taller than the fireman,

but at a far distance

但是如果离远了，

their normal, their true, relations are preserved.

他们正常的， 真实的关系就出来了。

就像柏拉图说的，时间对于价值的 影响同空间对于大小的影响一样。

As Plato said, what space is to size, time is to value.

These are the results of the hard problem I gave you:

这是刚才那道难题的答案。

现在拿50美元还是 一个月后拿60？

60 now or 50 in a month?

这些是主观的判断，

And these are subjective values,

and what you can see is, our two rules are preserved.

大家可以看到， 我们的两条原则都是成立的。

People always think more is better than less:

人们总是会觉得多比少好：

60 is always better than 50,

60美元永远比50美元好，

and they always think now is better than later:

人们还会觉得现在永远比将来好：

the bars on this side are higher than the bars on this side.

左边的柱形图比右边的要高。

Watch what happens when we drop some out.

看看去掉几个图形时发生了什么。

Suddenly we have the dynamic inconsistency that puzzled us.

现在突然有些困惑了， 刚才比较的结果一下子反了过来。

We have the tendency for people to go for 50 dollars now

我们看到人们更希望现在获得50元，

over waiting a month, but not if that decision is far in the future.

而不是去等一个月拿60， 但是在更长的时间里却又反过来了。

Notice something interesting that this implies -- namely, that

我们看到了一个有趣的现象—— 那就是

人们会在未来改变主意。

when people get to the future, they will change their minds.

That is, as that month 12 approaches, you will say,

当第12个月马上到了的时候， 你会说

what was I thinking, waiting an extra month for 60 dollars?

为什么还要为了那60块钱 再等一个月呢？

I'll take the 50 dollars now.

我现在就想要这50块钱。

Well, the question with which I'd like to end is this:

那么，在演讲结束的时候 想问大家一个问题：

If we're so damn stupid, how did we get to the moon?

如果我们都这么笨， 人类是怎么登上月球的？

因为我可以在这里讲两个小时， 举例证明

Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence

of people's inability to estimate odds and inability to estimate value.

人类在估计概率和价值方面的 无能表现。

这个问题的答案， 我想大家都已经知道了，

The answer to this question, I think, is an answer you've already heard

in some of the talks, and I dare say you will hear again:

以前听过相关的演讲， 我敢保证大家还会听到：

namely, that our brains were evolved for a very different world

那就是，我们的大脑是朝着

than the one in which we are living.

一个完全不同的世界进化的。

They were evolved for a world

在大脑为之进化的世界里，

in which people lived in very small groups,

人类生活在很小的群体当中，

rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves,

周围都是和自己一样的人，

had rather short lives in which there were few choices

人们的寿命非常短， 选择也非常少，

and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

最重要的事情就是 “今朝有酒今朝醉”。

Bernoulli's gift, Bernoulli's little formula, allows us, it tells us

伯努利的天赋， 他的小等式，告诉我们

how we should think in a world for which nature never designed us.

要如何用这个不符合自然规律的 大脑思考问题。

That explains why we are so bad at using it, but it also explains

这揭示了为什么我们思考问题的 能力这么差，也解释了

why it is so terribly important that we become good, fast.

让自己变得勤奋，高效 有多么重要。

We are the only species on this planet

人类是这个星球上唯一

that has ever held its own fate in its hands.

将命运掌握在自己手中的物种。

We have no significant predators,

我们没有主要的天敌。

we're the masters of our physical environment;

我们征服了大自然；

the things that normally cause species to become extinct

通常导致物种灭绝的东西

are no longer any threat to us.

已经不能对人类够成威胁。

The only thing -- the only thing -- that can destroy us and doom us

唯一一样可以毁灭我们的东西

are our own decisions.

就是我们自己的决定。

If we're not here in 10,000 years, it's going to be because

如果在1万年之后人类灭亡了， 原因就是

we could not take advantage of the gift given to us

我们没能用好那个荷兰年轻人

by a young Dutch fellow in 1738,

在1738年对世界的馈赠，

because we underestimated the odds of our future pains

因为我们低估了未来的痛苦，

and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.

也高估了眼前快乐的价值。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）

Chris Anderson: That was remarkable.

Chris Anderson （CA）: 讲得太精彩了。

We have time for some questions for Dan Gilbert. One and two.

我们还有些时间向丹·吉尔伯特提问。 现在有一个，两个人举手了。

Bill Lyell: Would you say that this mechanism

（观众）Bill Lyell: 你是不是说这种思考模式

is in part how terrorism actually works to frighten us,

也是恐怖分子用来 恐吓我们的一种手段，

and is there some way that we could counteract that?

有没有方法可以克服它呢？

丹·吉尔伯特（DG）：其实， 最近我正在做一个咨询项目，

Dan Gilbert: I actually was consulting recently

with the Department of Homeland Security, which generally believes

和国土安全部合作， 大概的内容就是

that American security dollars should go to making borders safer.

美国的国防经费应该用在 防卫边境的项目上。

I tried to point out to them that terrorism was a name

我试图告诉他们， 恐怖主义只是一个词，

based on people's psychological reaction to a set of events,

是人们对一系列的事件 产生的心理反应，

and that if they were concerned about terrorism they might ask

如果他们真的担心恐怖主义， 就应该问问

what causes terror and how can we stop people from being terrified,

是什么导致了恐怖活动， 以及如何让人们不再恐惧，

rather than -- not rather than, but in addition to

而不是——不，应该说， 在此基础上，

stopping the atrocities that we're all concerned about.

再去制止我们所担心的暴行。

Surely the kinds of play that at least American media give to --

事实上，美国媒体在 这类事件上的报道——

and forgive me, but in raw numbers these are very tiny accidents.

请原谅我的直接，这些 恐怖袭击的数量其实是非常小的。

We already know, for example, in the United States,

我们已经知道，例如，在美国

more people have died as a result of not taking airplanes --

更多的人因为没有 坐飞机而死亡——

because they were scared -- and driving on highways,

因为他们害怕坐飞机—— 但其实在

than were killed in 9/11. OK?

高速公路上死亡的 人数比911要多。

If I told you that there was a plague

如果我告诉你有一个瘟疫，

that was going to kill 15,000 Americans next year,

致使明年美国要死亡15000人，

you might be alarmed if you didn't find out it was the flu.

如果你不知道这只是“感冒", 你可能会非常惶恐。

These are small-scale accidents, and we should be wondering

这些都是小规模事件， 而我们应该反思

whether they should get the kind of play,

这些东西是否应该得到

the kind of coverage, that they do.

这样多的报道。

Surely that causes people to overestimate the likelihood

显然导致人们过高地估计了

that they'll be hurt in these various ways,

这些事件的伤害程度，

and gives power to the very people who want to frighten us.

恰恰让那些企图 恐吓我们的人达到目的了。

CA: Dan, I'd like to hear more on this. So, you're saying

CA：丹，我想插一句。 你的意思是说

that our response to terror is, I mean, it's a form of mental bug?

我们对恐怖事件的反应， 是一种精神上的缺陷吗？

Talk more about it.

给我们讲讲好吗？

DG: It's out-sized. I mean, look.

DG： 这个是被夸大了的。你看

If Australia disappears tomorrow,

如果明天澳大利亚消失了，

terror is probably the right response.

大家的第一感觉 可能就是恐怖袭击。

That's an awful large lot of very nice people. On the other hand,

那么大的国家，那么善良的人民。 但是另一方面，

when a bus blows up and 30 people are killed,

当一辆公共汽车爆炸了， 30个人遇难，

more people than that were killed

而在同一个国家更多人

by not using their seatbelts in the same country.

因为不系安全带死亡。

你觉得恐惧应该是 正常的反应吗？

Is terror the right response?

CA: What causes the bug? Is it the drama of the event --

CA：是什么导致了这样的精神 缺陷呢？是事件的震撼效果——

对人们的触动太大了吗？

that it's so spectacular?

Is it the fact that it's an intentional attack by, quote, outsiders?

是因为那是一个由“外国人” 发动的蓄意袭击吗？

What is it?

或者是别的什么？

DG: Yes. It's a number of things, and you hit on several of them.

DG：是的，很多的因素， 你说出了其中的一些。

First, it's a human agent trying to kill us --

首先，是一个人类的组织 试图杀死我们——

it's not a tree falling on us by accident.

而不是一棵树倒下来 意外地砸到我们。

Second, these are enemies who may want to strike and hurt us again.

其次，我们的敌人也许会 再次发动袭击伤害我们。

People are being killed for no reason instead of good reason --

人们是无缘无故地被杀害， 而不是死于合理的原因——

as if there's good reason, but sometimes people think there are.

就像真的有合理的原因似的， 但是有时候人们就是这样想的。

So there are a number of things that together

所以这是很多的因素集合在一起，

make this seem like a fantastic event, but let's not play down

把这件事变成一个显著事件， 但是我们不要忘了

the fact that newspapers sell when people see something in it

当人们看到想读的内容时， 报纸的销量就会比较好。

they want to read. So there's a large role here played by the media,

所以媒体在其中起了很大作用，

who want these things to be

他们希望这些事情

as spectacular as they possibly can.

越引人入胜越好。

CA：我想知道， 要怎样去降低这种情绪呢？

CA: I mean, what would it take to persuade our culture to downplay it?

DG：去以色列吧。

DG: Well, go to Israel. You know,

go to Israel. And a mall blows up,

去以色列。 发生了一起商场爆炸事，

and then everybody's unhappy about it, and an hour-and-a-half later --

所有人都非常气愤， 一个半小时后——

at least when I was there, and I was 150 feet from the mall

至少当我在场的时候， 一个离我们150英尺的商场

when it blew up -- I went back to my hotel

爆炸了——我回到了酒店，

and the wedding that was planned was still going on.

一个筹备好的婚礼还在照常进行。

And as the Israeli mother said,

就像一个以色列母亲所说的，

she said, "We never let them win by stopping weddings."

她说，”我们永远不会让他们得逞， 影响到我们的婚礼。“

I mean, this is a society that has learned --

我的意思是， 这是一个已经习惯了的社会——

and there are others too -- that has learned to live

当然有些其他地方也是—— 学会了如何在

with a certain amount of terrorism and not be quite as upset by it,

一定的恐怖主义威胁中生存， 而且不会过分担心，被打扰，

shall I say, as those of us who have not had many terror attacks.

就像我们中间那些没怎么经历过 恐怖袭击的人一样。

CA: But is there a rational fear that actually,

CA：但是这样的恐惧 是不是理性的呢，

the reason we're frightened about this is because we think that

我们之所以恐惧是因为下一轮袭击

the Big One is to come?

可能更严重？

DG: Yes, of course. So, if we knew that this was the worst attack

DG：当然，如果我们知道 这次袭击已经是最严重的了，

there would ever be, there might be more and more buses of 30 people --

当然，也许还会有更多的 30人大巴爆炸事件——

we would probably not be nearly so frightened.

我们很可能就没那么害怕了。

I don't want to say -- please, I'm going to get quoted somewhere

我并不是说—— 我要引用一句别人的话，

as saying, "Terrorism is fine and we shouldn't be so distressed."

“恐怖主义并不可怕， 我们不应该那么紧张。”

That's not my point at all.

这决不是我的意思。

What I'm saying is that, surely, rationally,

我要说的是，理性地讲，

our distress about things that happen, about threats,

我们对这些事实和威胁 产生的恐惧心理，

应该和所面对的威胁及将要到来的

should be roughly proportional to the size of those threats

and threats to come.

威胁的规模成比例。

I think in the case of terrorism, it isn't.

我认为在对待恐怖主义 这件事上，人们不是这样的。

今天我们听到那么多的演讲——

And many of the things we've heard about from our speakers today --

how many people do you know got up and said,

有多少人站起来说，

Poverty! I can't believe what poverty is doing to us.

贫穷！ 真想不到贫穷的状况这么严重！！！

People get up in the morning; they don't care about poverty.

人们早上起来的时候 还完全不关心贫穷。

It's not making headlines, it's not making news, it's not flashy.

贫穷成不了新闻头条， 因为它一点都不吸引人。

There are no guns going off.

那里没有枪声。

I mean, if you had to solve one of these problems, Chris,

我是说，Christ，如果你必须去 解决其中的一个问题，

which would you solve? Terrorism or poverty?

你会选哪个？恐怖主义还是贫穷？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（掌声）

That's a tough one.

这个问题很难。

CA: There's no question.

CA： 毫无疑问。

Poverty, by an order of magnitude, a huge order of magnitude,

贫穷，从重要性上来讲 无疑是优先的，

unless someone can show that there's, you know,

除非什么人在这里可以证明

terrorists with a nuke are really likely to come.

恐怖主义已经拥有了核武器。

The latest I've read, seen, thought

我最近读到、看到、想到的是

is that it's incredibly hard for them to do that.

核武器对于恐怖主义来说 还是比较难获得的。

If that turns out to be wrong, we all look silly,

如果那个判断是错误的， 我们可就出大糗了，

but with poverty it's a bit --

但是相对于贫穷， 有那么一点儿——

DG: Even if that were true, still more people die from poverty.

DG：即使那是真的， 还是有更多的人死于贫困。

CA: We've evolved to get all excited

CA： 我们变得对待恐怖袭击时

about these dramatic attacks. Is that because in the past,

会非常激动。那是因为

in the ancient past, we just didn't understand things like disease

在很久以前，我们还不知道是疾病

and systems that cause poverty and so forth,

和其他种种原因导致了贫穷，

and so it made no sense for us as a species to put any energy

所以我们这个物种并没有 投入太多精力

into worrying about those things?

去担心这些事情？

People died; so be it.

人们死去了，正常的。

但如果你被袭击了， 是可以做些什么去应对的。

But if you got attacked, that was something you could do something about.

And so we evolved these responses.

所以我们会有这样的反应。

Is that what happened?

是这个原因吗？

DG: Well, you know, the people who are most skeptical

DG：你知道吗， 那些对用进化论解释所有问题

about leaping to evolutionary explanations for everything

持最大怀疑态度的人，

are the evolutionary psychologists themselves.

恰恰是进化心理学者们自己。

My guess is that there's nothing quite that specific

我的猜测是， 从人类的进化史上看

从来没有任何东西是特定的。 然而，如果你去寻找

in our evolutionary past. But rather, if you're looking for

an evolutionary explanation, you might say

一个进化论的解释，你也许会说

that most organisms are neo-phobic -- that is, they're a little scared

绝大多数物种都有一种“恐新症” ——就是说，他们害怕

of stuff that's new and different.

新的、不一样的东西。

And there's a good reason to be,

有个充分的理由是，

见过的东西不会吃掉你，对吗？

because old stuff didn't eat you. Right?

Any animal you see that you've seen before is less likely

见过的动物都不可能

to be a predator than one that you've never seen before.

比那些没见过的动物更可怕。

So, you know, when a school bus is blown up and we've never seen this before,

所以，当一个学校的校车爆炸， 我们以前从来没有见过这样的事情，

our general tendency is to orient towards

这种恐惧新生事物的倾向

that which is new and novel is activated.

就被激活了。

I don't think it's quite as specific a mechanism

我并不认为这是一种 特别的机制在里面起作用，

as the one you alluded to, but maybe a more fundamental one underlying it.

就像你刚才暗指的那样， 但背后也许是更基础的原因。

Jay Walker: You know, economists love to talk about

（观众）Jay Walker: 经济学家往往喜欢谈论

the stupidity of people who buy lottery tickets. But I suspect

那些买彩票的人有多么愚蠢。 但是我怀疑

you're making the exact same error you're accusing those people of,

就在你指责这些人的时候， 自己也犯了同样的错误，

which is the error of value.

也就是在估值上的错误。

I know, because I've interviewed

我这么说是因为近几年

about 1,000 lottery buyers over the years.

我曾经访谈了大约1000个 买彩票的人。

It turns out that the value of buying a lottery ticket is not winning.

结果显示， 购买彩票的价值并不是去中奖。

That's what you think it is. All right?

但这是你认为的价值，对吗？

The average lottery buyer buys about 150 tickets a year,

一个普通的彩民一年要买 大约150张彩票，

so the buyer knows full well that he or she is going to lose,

这个彩民其实完全知道 他是会输掉的，

and yet she buys 150 tickets a year. Why is that?

可还是会每年买150张，为什么？

It's not because she is stupid or he is stupid.

这并不是因为他（她）的 脑子有问题。

而是因为中奖的预期

It's because the anticipation of possibly winning

releases serotonin in the brain, and actually provides a good feeling

在大脑中释放出一种血清胺， 让人们产生快感

until the drawing indicates you've lost.

会一直持续到开奖的时候。

Or, to put it another way, for the dollar investment,

换一种说法，投资1美元，

you can have a much better feeling than flushing the money

可以获得比马桶冲钱 好很多的快感，

down the toilet, which you cannot have a good feeling from.

如果你真用马桶冲钱的话， 你是不会有好的感觉的。

Now, economists tend to --

现在，经济学家们都倾向于——

(Applause)

（掌声）

经济学家们都试图 用他们的有色眼镜

-- economists tend to view the world

through their own lenses, which is:

看这个世界，结果是：

this is just a bunch of stupid people.

看到一群愚蠢的人。

And as a result, many people look at economists as stupid people.

结果很多人觉得 经济学家也很愚蠢。

And so fundamentally, the reason we got to the moon is,

总之，人类能登上月球

we didn't listen to the economists. Thank you very much.

就是因为当初没有听 经济学家的意见，谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）

DG: Well, no, it's a great point. It remains to be seen

DG：你的观点很好。 但是有件事还有待考察：

whether the joy of anticipation is exactly equaled

预期中奖的快乐是不是和

by the amount of disappointment after the lottery. Because remember,

开奖之后的“沮丧”的程度相等。 请记住：

people who didn't buy tickets don't feel awful the next day either,

不买彩票的人开奖后第二天 不会觉得那么“沮丧”，

尽管在开奖的瞬间感觉 也没有那么好。

even though they don't feel great during the drawing.

我不同意那些人知道 自己肯定会输。

I would disagree that people know they're not going to win.

也许他们觉得可能性不大， 但还是可能发生的，

I think they think it's unlikely, but it could happen,

which is why they prefer that to the flushing.

所以他们更愿意去买彩票 而不是冲厕所。

But certainly I see your point: that there can be

但是我也看到了你的观点： 确实，

some utility to buying a lottery ticket other than winning.

除了中奖之外买彩票是会 给人们带来一定的效用的。

Now, I think there's many good reasons not to listen to economists.

其实还有很多很好的 不听从经济学家的理由。

That isn't one of them, for me, but there's many others.

对我来说这不是其中一个， 但确实还有很多别的理由。

CA: Last question.

CA：最后一个问题。

Aubrey de Grey: My name's Aubrey de Grey, from Cambridge.

（观众）Aubrey de Grey： 我叫Aubrey de Grey，剑桥的。

I work on the thing that kills more people than anything else kills --

我所研究的东西比其他 所有东西都能导致更多人死亡——

I work on aging -- and I'm interested in doing something about it,

我研究衰老—— 非常希望能在这个领域做些什么，

as we'll all hear tomorrow.

明天大家就会听到。

I very much resonate with what you're saying,

我很认同你的观点，

because it seems to me that the problem

因为在我看来

with getting people interested in doing anything about aging

人们之所以不太关心衰老的问题，

is that by the time aging is about to kill you it looks like cancer

是因为衰老在即将夺去生命的时候， 它看起来像癌症，

or heart disease or whatever. Do you have any advice?

或者心脏病什么的。 你有什么建议吗？

(Laughter)

（笑声）

DG: For you or for them?

DG： 建议是给你还是给他们？

AdG: In persuading them.

AdG： 说服他们。

DG: Ah, for you in persuading them.

DG： 哦，要让你说服他们。

Well, it's notoriously difficult to get people to be farsighted.

让人们有远见是 一件非常困难的事情。

But one thing that psychologists have tried that seems to work

但有一件事情心理学家试过， 效果还不错，

is to get people to imagine the future more vividly.

那就是让人们更生动、 更真实地设想未来。

One of the problems with making decisions about the far future

关于做未来和当前的 决策的问题之一

and the near future is that we imagine the near future

在于人们对当前的预期

much more vividly than the far future.

要比未来生动、真实的多。

To the extent that you can equalize the amount of detail

你可以试图找到很多细节

that people put into the mental representations

帮助人们想象

of near and far future, people begin to make decisions

短期和长期的环境， 人们就会开始用同样的

about the two in the same way.

方式对现在和未来做决定。

So, would you like to have an extra 100,000 dollars when you're 65

那么，你是否愿意在65岁的时候 得到额外的10万美元，

这个问题很复杂， 相比较当你设想

is a question that's very different than,

imagine who you'll be when you're 65: will you be living,

你65岁的时候是什么人： 是否还活着，

what will you look like, how much hair will you have,

会喜欢什么东西，还剩多少头发，

who will you be living with.

和什么人生活在一起。

Once we have all the details of that imaginary scenario,

一旦我们想清楚了 所有未来情景下的细节，

suddenly we feel like it might be important to save

我们会忽然感觉， 攒钱是很重要的，

so that that guy has a little retirement money.

这样退休的时候才会有钱。

But these are tricks around the margins.

但这也不能一概而论。

我感觉总的来说你在和 最基本的人性做斗争，

I think in general you're battling a very fundamental human tendency,

那就是：”我今天在这里，

which is to say, "I'm here today,

and so now is more important than later."

所以此时此刻比未来更重要。“

CA： 谢谢你 Dan。在座的各位，

CA: Dan, thank you. Members of the audience,

that was a fantastic session. Thank you.

这段演讲真是很精彩，谢谢大家。

(Applause)

（掌声）