When you're making a deal, what's going on in your brain? | Colin Camerer

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Thu-Huong Ha

翻译人员: Angelique Wang 校对人员: Honghai Lee

I'm going to talk about the strategizing brain.

我接下来谈谈运筹帷幄的大脑。

我们将用到一些工具不同寻常的组合。

We're going to use an unusual combination of tools

from game theory and neuroscience

它们是博弈论和神经科学。

to understand how people interact socially when value is on the line.

利用它们来理解：当有利益冲突时，人们在社交上是如何相互影响。

So game theory is a branch of, originally, applied mathematics,

博弈论是最原始的的应用数学的一个分支，

used mostly in economics and political science, a little bit in biology,

常常在经济和政治科学领域被使用，在生物学领域也有所涉及。

这让我们有了一个数学分类法，去分类社会生活。

that gives us a mathematical taxonomy of social life,

and it predicts what people are likely to do

博弈论可以以此预测：人们有可能做什么，

and believe others will do

以及揣测别人会做什么，

在所有人的行为相互影响的情况下。

in cases where everyone's actions affect everyone else.

这里有许多的情况：比赛，合作，谈判，游戏

That's a lot of things: competition, cooperation, bargaining,

games like hide-and-seek and poker.

比如捉迷藏和打扑克。

Here's a simple game to get us started.

这里我们做个简单的游戏

Everyone chooses a number from zero to 100.

每个人在0~100中选择一个数字

We're going to compute the average of those numbers,

我们将会计算出这些数字的平均值，

and whoever's closest to two-thirds of the average wins a fixed prize.

如果谁的数字最接近平均值的三分之二，就获胜。

So you want to be a little bit below the average number

如此一来，你就会想要比平均值稍微低那么一点，

but not too far below,

但又不能小很多，然而每个人都想要

and everyone else wants to be a little bit below the average number as well.

比平均值小那么一点。

想想你会挑什么数字。

Think about what you might pick.

正如你所想的那样，这正是一个

As you're thinking,

this is a toy model of something like selling in the stock market

在牛市的股票市场抛售股票的微缩模型，对吧？

during a rising market:

你不会想过早的抛售，因为这样你有可能错失很多利润

You don't want to sell too early, because you miss out on profits,

但你也同样不会想等得过晚，

but you don't want to wait too late, to when everyone else sells,

以至于等到每个人都抛售了，引发了股市的崩盘。

triggering a crash.

你只是会想要比这个竞争稍微领先一点，又不想提前太早。

You want to be a little bit ahead of the competition, but not too far ahead.

好吧，这里有两个关于“人们如何思考这个问题”的理论，

OK, here's two theories about how people might think about this,

然后我们将会看到一些数据。

then we'll see some data.

他们中的一些也许听起来比较耳熟，因为你很有可能

Some of these will sound familiar

就是这样思考问题的。我现在利用大脑理论来解释。

because you probably are thinking that way.

I'm using my brain theory to see.

A lot of people say, "I really don't know what people are going to pick,

许多的人说：“我真的不知道人们会如何选择，

所以我认为平均值也许会是50。“

so I think the average will be 50" -- they're not being strategic at all --

他们这样的想法是没有战略性的。

and "I'll pick two-thirds of 50, that's 33."

”然后我要选择50的三分之二，那就是33。“然后这就开始了。

That's a start.

然而经验更老道的人

Other people, who are a little more sophisticated,

会利用更多的实践经验，

using more working memory,

say, "I think people will pick 33,

他们会说：”我认为人们会选择33，这是他们对50做出的反应，

because they're going to pick a response to 50,

所以我要选择33的三分之二，也就是22。“

and so I'll pick 22, which is two-thirds of 33."

They're doing one extra step of thinking, two steps.

他们只是多做了一步思考，也就是两步。

That's better.

这就相比较好很多了。当然，原则上，

Of course, in principle, you could do three, four or more,

你可以三思而后行，甚至更深入，

but it starts to get very difficult.

但是这会相对比较困难了。

Just like in language and other domains,

就像是在语言或者其他领域，我们知道深层剖析

we know that it's hard for people to parse very complex sentences

有复杂成分和递归结构句子的语法就比较艰难。

with a recursive structure.

顺便提一下，这被叫做认知层次理论。

This is called the cognitive hierarchy theory,

我曾经拿这个理论在一小部分人身上试验过

something I've worked on and a few other people,

and it indicates a kind of hierarchy,

试验指明了一种层次

along with some assumptions about how many people stop at different steps

它假设出多少人会停留在不同的思考步骤

以及各个不同的思考步骤是如何

and how the steps of thinking are affected

被许多的有趣的变量和善变的人们所影响的，我们等一下会看到

by lots of interesting variables and variant people,

as we'll see in a minute.

一个截然不同的理论，一个更受欢迎的理论，同样也是一个老牌理论

A very different theory, a much more popular one and an older one,

一个大部分是由于”美丽心灵“的John Nash名声而引发的理论，

due largely to John Nash of "A Beautiful Mind" fame,

is what's called "equilibrium analysis."

也被叫做均衡分析

So if you've ever taken a game theory course at any level,

所以，如果你曾在不同的层面尝试对策论，

你将会对这个有些许领悟。

you'll have learned a bit about this.

均衡法则是是一种数学陈述

An equilibrium is a mathematical state

in which everybody has figured out exactly what everyone else will do.

能让每个人都精确计算出别人将要做的。

这是一个很有用的观点，但在实际实践中，

It is a very useful concept,

but behaviorally, it may not exactly explain

这可能并不能准确解释出人们会做什么

what people do the first time they play these types of economic games

尤其，他们第一次将这些运用于经济活动

or in situations in the outside world.

或者是脱离常规的情况

In this case, the equilibrium makes a very bold prediction,

这种情况下，均衡论则会是一种十分冒险的预测

which is: everyone wants to be below everyone else,

让每个人都想比别人低

therefore, they'll play zero.

因此他们会演变为零

Let's see what happens.

让我们看看什么会发生。这个实验已经被做了许多次了

This experiment's been done many, many times.

最早的实验事在90世纪

Some of the earliest ones were done in the '90s

由我和Rosemarie Nagel和其他一些人做的

by me and Rosemarie Nagel and others.

这个基于9000个为三份报纸和杂志写作的人得到的数据

This is a beautiful data set of 9,000 people

who wrote in to three newspapers and magazines that had a contest.

也有争议

The contest said, send in your numbers,

该争议是，给出你的数字

and whoever is close to two-thirds of the average will win a big prize.

谁的更接近平均值的三分之二将会胜出

你可以看到，这里有十分有力的数据，有一些明显突出的柱状

As you can see, there's so much data here, you can see the spikes very visibly.

一个是在33，这些人只动用了一步思考

There's a spike at 33 -- those are people doing one step.

There is another spike visible at 22.

其余的集中在22

并且可以发现，大部分的人都集中在这两块地方

Notice, by the way, most people pick numbers right around there;

他们并不是一定要选择33或者22的

they don't necessarily pick exactly 33 and 22.

其他的选择分布于周围

There's something a bit noisy around it.

但你可以看到这些柱状，他们很突显

But you can see those spikes on that end.

这里也有另一组人

There's another group of people

他们貌似比较熟悉均衡论的应用分析，

who seem to have a firm grip on equilibrium analysis,

因为他们选择了0或1

because they're picking zero or one.

But they lose, right?

但是他们失败了

Because picking a number that low is actually a bad choice

因为过于小的数字明显不是个明智的选择

如果其他的人并没有运用均衡论分析数据

if other people aren't doing equilibrium analysis as well.

So they're smart, but poor.

他们很聪明，也很可怜

(Laughter)

（笑声）

Where are these things happening in the brain?

这些思想发生于大脑的哪一个区域呢？

Coricellli和Nagel所作的一个研究给出了一个很犀利也很有趣的回答

One study by Coricelli and Nagel gives a really sharp, interesting answer.

They had people play this game while they were being scanned in an fMRI,

所以他们让人们玩这个游戏的同时

也在用磁共振扫描他们的大脑

and two conditions:

并且发现两种情况：在一些试验中

in some trials, they're told,

人们被告知正在和其他的人一起玩这个游戏

"You're playing another person who's playing right now.

并且最后会根据你的行为

We'll match up your behavior at the end and pay you if you win."

判定你是否胜出并给与奖励

在另一试验中，他们被告知，他们正在和一台电脑玩

In other trials, they're told, "You're playing a computer,

他们可以很随意地选择

they're just choosing randomly."

所以你可以看到，

So what you see here is a subtraction of areas

在大脑活动最发达的地方出现了差值

in which there's more brain activity when you're playing people

当你与人竞赛和与电脑竞赛时是不同的

compared to playing the computer.

And you see activity in some regions we've seen today,

我们今天所看见的一些区域的活动情况

多集中于中间额叶前部皮质层，向背中线的区域，也就是这儿

medial prefrontal cortex, dorsomedial, up here,

ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate,

腹正中额叶前部皮质层

前部有色带这些区域。

an area that's involved in lots of types of conflict resolution,

在许多不同类型相互冲突地结论中，就像如果你正在玩“西蒙说”

like if you're playing "Simon Says,"

也同样会感觉到偏左或右的皮质感觉性失语。

and also the right and left temporoparietal junction.

And these are all areas which are fairly reliably known to be

这些区域这是相当可信的

人们都认为这是一种循环的“思维理论”的一部分

part of what's called a "theory of mind" circuit

或者也可以说是“心智循环”

or "mentalizing circuit."

That is, it's a circuit that's used to imagine what other people might do.

这就是会所，这是一种习惯于思考别人会如何做的循环性思维

These were some of the first studies to see this tied in to game theory.

这里有一些初步研究

来看这种思维是如何与对策论紧密联系的

What happens with these one- and two-step types?

这些一步或者两步的思维会发生什么？

我们把人们根据他们的选择而分类，

So, we classify people by what they picked,

然后我们观察与人类竞赛和与电脑竞赛

and then we look at the difference between playing humans versus computers,

究竟有什么不同

which brain areas are differentially active.

哪部分大脑区域有不同的活动。

On the top, you see the one-step players.

从上面图片的玩家，你可以看到思考了一步的人们

这里没什么区别

There's almost no difference.

原因是，他们把别的人都当做了电脑，大脑也是

The reason is, they're treating other people like a computer,

下方图的玩家，大多数的大脑活动都集中在向背中线的PFC处

and the brain is too.

The bottom players, you see all the activity in dorsomedial PFC.

所以我们知道这两个步骤思考的人们会做些不同的事。

So we know the two-step players are doing something differently.

现在，你退后一步想，“这些信息对我有什么帮助？”

Now, what can we do with this information?

你也许可以观察到大脑活动，并且说

You might be able to look at brain activity and say,

“这个人将会成为一个很好的纸牌玩家”

"This person will be a good poker player," or "This person's socially naive."

或者说“这个人是比较单纯不更事的”

我们也有可能了解到

We might also be able to study things like development of adolescent brains

大脑青春期的大脑发育情况

一旦我们对这个循环的思想存在于哪里有了想法

once we have an idea of where this circuitry exists.

那就好了，准备好。

OK. Get ready.

I'm saving you some brain activity,

我正在留住你的大脑活动

because you don't need to use your hair detector cells.

因为你不需要你的大脑觉察细胞

You should use those cells to think carefully about this game.

你必须用这些细胞去仔细思考这个游戏

这是一个交易的游戏。

This is a bargaining game.

Two players who are being scanned using EEG electrodes

两个玩家谁被扫描了脑电图电极

are going to bargain over one to six dollars.

将会进行一到六美元的交易，

If they can do it in 10 seconds, they'll earn that money.

如果他们能在10秒钟内做到这个，他们将获得这些钱

如果10秒钟过去了，他们还没有解决，他们什么都得不到。

If 10 seconds go by and they haven't made a deal, they get nothing.

这是一个错误

That's kind of a mistake together.

The twist is that one player, on the left,

使人烦恼的是，左边的玩家

is informed about how much on each trial there is.

会被提示每个试验里会有多少钱。

They play lots of trials with different amounts each time.

他们每次会有不同的时间去进行许多试验

In this case, they know there's four dollars.

在这个情况下，他们知道这里有四美元。

The uninformed player doesn't know, but they know the informed player knows.

而另一部分玩家并不知情，

他们知道知情的玩家知道什么

So the uninformed player's challenge is to say,

所以不知情的玩家的挑战是

"Is this guy being fair,

“这个人会不会真的公平

or are they giving me a very low offer

或者他们会不会给我一个很低的分数

in order to get me to think there's only one or two dollars available to split?"

以至于让我认为这里只有一个或者两个可获得的美元去分离给我们“

在这种情况下，他们会抵制它，并且不去处理。

in which case they might reject it and not come to a deal.

所以这里会因为想得到更多的钱而焦虑不安

So there's some tension here between trying to get the most money

想试着刺激其他的玩家给你更多的钱。

but trying to goad the other player into giving you more.

他们交易的方式是点出一个

And the way they bargain is to point on a number line

从零到六的数轴，

that goes from zero to six dollars.

他们的交易取决于未知情玩家得到多少

They're bargaining over how much the uninformed player gets,

知情的玩家则将获得剩下的

and the informed player will get the rest.

所以这就像是一个管理工人的协商

So this is like a management-labor negotiation

在这个协商里工人并不知道

in which the workers don't know

how much profits the privately held company has,

这个私营企业的盈利是多少，对的

and they want to maybe hold out for more money,

他们想尽可能坚持到更多的钱

but the company might want to create the impression

但是企业则会想要给出一种

没有更多的利益可以分割的假象”我给了你我所能给的大部分“

that there's very little to split: "I'm giving the most I can."

首先是一些行为，所以许多情况下，他们面对面的进行交涉。

First, some behavior: a bunch of the subject pairs play face-to-face.

We have other data where they play across computers.

我们有另一些数据当他们通过电脑交涉时的情况。

你也许会想到，这是一个很有趣的差别。

That's an interesting difference, as you might imagine.

但是许多的面对面的玩家们

But a bunch of the face-to-face pairs

每一次都同意平分钱。

agree to divide the money evenly every single time.

这很无聊。这是一个很没趣的思维。

Boring. It's just not interesting neurally.

对他们来说这是好的，他们由此赚了很多钱。

It's good for them -- they make a lot of money.

But we're interested in:

但我们更感兴趣的是，我们能否说些什么

Can we say something about when disagreements occur versus don't occur?

当冲突发生时，而不是什么都没发生

So this is the other group of subjects, who often disagree.

所以这就是这个项目的另一组，经常发生冲突的

他们有更多的机会去斗嘴和争执

They bicker and disagree and end up with less money.

最后以更少的钱结尾。

They might be eligible to be on "Real Housewives," the TV show.

他们会有资格参加电视剧《绝望主妇》

(Laughter)

你所能看到的在左边，

You see on the left,

when the amount to divide is one, two or three dollars,

当可以分割的数量是一美元、两美元或者三美元时

they disagree about half the time;

他们要争执一般的时间，

when it's four, five, six, they agree quite often.

但当数量为四美元、五美元、六美元时，他们更容易达成一致。

This turns out to be something that's predicted

这就成了原先所预料的

by a very complicated type of game theory

要用非常复杂的对策论了

you should come to graduate school at CalTech and learn about.

你应该要去加利福尼亚理工大学学习这个。

这个现在解释起来会有点复杂，

It's a little too complicated to explain right now,

但是这个理论告诉你这种情况会发生

but the theory tells you that this shape should occur.

你的直觉也会这么告诉你吧。

Your intuition might tell you that, too.

Now I'm going to show you the results from the EEG recording.

现在，我将要给你展现脑电图记录的结果

非常复杂。右边的大脑图解

Very complicated.

The right brain schematic is the uninformed person,

是未知情者的，左边的是知情者的

and the left is the informed.

要知道我们是同时对他们的大脑进行了扫描，

Remember that we scanned both brains at the same time,

so we can ask about time-synced activity

所以我们要求完全同步的进行活动

同时地，在相同或者不同的区域，

in similar or different areas simultaneously,

就像如果你想要研究一个会话

just like if you wanted to study a conversation,

and you were scanning two people talking to each other.

你要同时扫描对话双方的大脑

并且你希望这是一个用地域语言的普通对话

You'd expect common activity in language regions

在他们听着并交流着的时候

when they're listening and communicating.

所以箭头将会同步标记出哪块区域比较活跃

So the arrows connect regions that are active at the same time.

箭头指向的出发点的区域

The direction of the arrows

flows from the region that's active first in time,

是最早有大脑活动的区域

and the arrowhead goes to the region that's active later.

箭头所指向的地方则是活动相对较晚的区域

所以这种情况下，如果你观察够仔细，

So in this case, if you look carefully,

most of the arrows flow from right to left.

就会发现，大部分的箭头都从大脑右边指向左边

这也就是说，有没有可能是未接受信息的大脑

That is, it looks as if the uninformed brain activity

is happening first,

活动发生的相对早，

and then it's followed by activity in the informed brain.

然后再转移到已接受信息的大脑区域

顺便一提，这就是“哪部分大脑区域会解决问题”的试验

And by the way, these are trials where their deals were made.

This is from the first two seconds.

这是在最早的两秒钟看出来的

We haven't finished analyzing this data, so we're still peeking in,

我们还没完成这个数据的分析，

我们依旧在观察，但希望还是非常大的

but the hope is that we can say something in the first couple of seconds

因为我们可以从第一个两秒中看出

about whether they'll make a deal or not,

他们是否将会作出反应

which could be very useful in thinking about avoiding litigation

这对考虑避免诉讼来说将会有很大的用处

包括一些讨人厌的离婚案件或者其他一些诸如此类的事

and ugly divorces and things like that.

这是一些由于耽搁或者打击

Those are all cases in which a lot of value is lost by delay and strikes.

而丧失了很多价值的案列

Here's the case where the disagreements occur.

这里有个起冲突了的案例

You can see it looks different than the one before.

你可以看到这个看上去和之前的有所不同

这里有了更多的箭头

There's a lot more arrows.

That means that the brains are synced up more closely

这就表示大脑正因为一系列的同步事件

高速同步着。

in terms of simultaneous activity,

and the arrows flow clearly from left to right.

并且箭头的指向也很明显地从左边转到右边

这也就是，接受到信息的大脑看上去正在决定着

That is, the informed brain seems to be deciding,

“我们也许不会有结果的”

"We're probably not going to make a deal here."

And then later, there's activity in the uninformed brain.

然后是未接收到信息的大脑区域的活动

Next, I'm going to introduce you to some relatives.

接下来我将向你介绍一些相关连的元素。

他们是多毛的，有气味的，敏捷的，也是强壮的。

They're hairy, smelly, fast and strong.

You might be thinking back to your last Thanksgiving.

你也许会联想到你的上一个感恩节

(Laughter)

Maybe, if you had a chimpanzee with you.

可能你有一个黑猩猩陪着你

Charles Darwin and I and you broke off from the family tree from chimpanzees

在5百万年前，Charles Darwin和我们

砍断了黑猩猩的赖以生存的树

about five million years ago.

They're still our closest genetic kin.

但他们始终是我们最为亲密的祖先。

We share 98.8 percent of the genes.

我们有98.8%的基因是相同的。

We share more genes with them than zebras do with horses.

我们与他们的基因相似度远大于斑马和马

And we're also their closest cousin.

并且我们还是他们最亲密的亲属

They have more genetic relation to us than to gorillas.

他们与我们的相似度也远大于大猩猩

So, how humans and chimpanzees behave differently

但是人类和黑猩猩的行为差距如此之大

might tell us a lot about brain evolution.

也同样告诉我们大脑是如何进化的

This is an amazing memory test

所以这是一个神奇的记忆测试

from [Kyoto], Japan, the Primate Research Institute,

来自于日本名古屋的；灵长类动物研究所

where they've done a lot of this research.

他们做了许许多多相关的研究

This goes back a ways. They're interested in working memory.

这个要追溯到另一种探索了。他们对记忆的研究十分感兴趣

黑猩猩已经开始非常仔细的观察东西了。

The chimp will see, watch carefully,

他们已经可以看清200毫秒间的事物运动

they'll see 200 milliseconds' exposure -- that's fast, eight movie frames --

——这是很快的，相当于八个帧的电影片段——

of numbers one, two, three, four, five.

一个、两个、三个、四个或五个事物的200毫秒运动

Then they disappear and are replaced by squares,

这些事物由方块来代替

and they have to press the squares

他们需要按方块

that correspond to the numbers from low to high

来与从低到高的数字达成一致

to get an apple reward.

这样才能得到一个苹果的奖励。

我们来看看他是如何做的

Let's see how they can do it.

This is a young chimp.

这是一只幼年黑猩猩，

The young ones are better than the old ones, just like humans.

比较的年轻的猩猩会比老的更优秀，这点和人类一样

(Laughter)

他们常被用来做实验，所以他们做了这个

And they're highly experienced,

时间一分一秒的过去了，

they've done this thousands of times.

很明显，正如你可想象的，这儿有过一个很重大的训练影响着猩猩。

Obviously there's a big training effect, as you can imagine.

（笑声）

(Laughter)

You can see they're very blasé and effortless.

你可以看到的是，他们很厌烦并对此不费吹灰之力

Not only can they do it very well, they do it in a sort of lazy way.

他们可以不仅仅做得很好，他们还会偷懒着做这个

(Laughter)

Who thinks you could beat the chimps?

不是吗？谁认为自己可以打败这个黑猩猩？

(Laughter)

Wrong. (Laughter)

这是错的。（笑声）

We can try. We'll try. Maybe we'll try.

我们可以尝试。我们会尝试，也许。

OK, so the next part of the study I'm going to go quickly through

好吧，所以下面我要快速过一遍的

这个研究的下一部分

is based on an idea of Tetsuro Matsuzawa.

是基于Tetsuro Matsuzawa的想法上的

He had a bold idea he called the "cognitive trade-off hypothesis."

他有一个大胆的想法——他称之为认知贸易——就是远离假设

我们知道黑猩猩有着敏捷的速度和强壮的体魄

We know chimps are faster and stronger; they're also obsessed with status.

他们也会被困境难住

他的想法是，也许他们保留了大脑活动

His thought was, maybe they've preserved brain activities

并且他们还不断地实践发展他们

and practice them in development

that are really, really important to them to negotiate status and to win,

这点对他们来说是十分十分重要的

要去扭转局势并取得胜利，

which is something like strategic thinking during competition.

这就好像是比赛中战略性的思考

So we're going to check that out

所以我们要求证一下

by having the chimps actually play a game

通过让黑猩猩们

by touching two touch screens.

玩触屏机器的游戏

The chimps are interacting with each other through the computers.

这些黑猩猩会在电脑上和大家玩的不亦乐乎

他们将要按左边或右边

They'll press left or right.

One chimp is called a matcher; they win if they press left-left,

一个猩猩被叫做配对员

他们一直按左边就会胜出

like a seeker finding someone in hide-and-seek, or right-right.

就像是捉迷藏里的找的一方，或者是右边

The mismatcher wants to mismatch;

而非匹配员要做的就是不匹配

他们要按猩猩按的屏幕的另一边

they want to press the opposite screen of the chimp.

And the rewards are apple cube rewards.

奖励是一个立方体的奖励

So here's how game theorists look at these data.

所以这些是理论者观察到的数据

This is a graph of the percentage of times

这是一个时间百分率的图标

the matcher picked right on the x-axis

右边的配对员是X轴

and the percentage of times they picked right

预计右边玩家的非匹配者

他们时间的百分率在y轴

by the mismatcher on the y-axis.

So a point here is the behavior by a pair of players,

所以重点就是这对玩家的行为

one trying to match, one trying to mismatch.

一个去匹配一个不去匹配

The NE square in the middle -- actually, NE, CH and QRE --

中间那个NE的方块——也就是NE，CH和QRE

those are three different theories of Nash equilibrium and others,

这是三个不同理论的纳什均衡论，或者其他

这些告诉你这个理论所预计的

tells you what the theory predicts,

which is that they should match 50-50,

也就是他们应该将50和50配对

because if you play left too much, for example,

因为如果你一直在左边，举个例子

I can exploit that if I'm the mismatcher by then playing right.

我可以判断我是不是右边的非匹配员

And as you can see, the chimps -- each chimp is one triangle --

并且你可以看到，每一个黑猩猩是一个三角

are circled around, hovering around that prediction.

在整个预测中呈现环形围绕着

现在我们移动结果

Now we move the payoffs.

We're going to make the left-left payoff for the matcher a little higher.

我们将匹配员的左边的结果弄得高一些

Now they get three apple cubes.

现在他们有三个苹果方块了

Game theoretically, that should make the mismatcher's behavior shift:

从对策论原理上来说，这将会加快非匹配员的行为

因为这将会使非匹配员认为

the mismatcher will think, "Oh, this guy's going to go for the big reward,

噢，这些家伙想要获得最大的奖励

然后我要来到右边，确保他并没有得到

so I'll go to the right, make sure he doesn't get it."

就像你可以看到的，他们的行为

And as you can see, their behavior moves up

随着纳什均衡论中说的趋势的变化而改变着

in the direction of this change in the Nash equilibrium.

Finally, we changed the payoffs one more time.

最后，我们再次改变了结果

Now it's four apple cubes,

这次是四个苹果方块

and their behavior again moves towards the Nash equilibrium.

然后他们的行为再次向着纳什均衡论的方向发展了

周围也有一小部分例外，但如果你取了这些猩猩的平均值

It's sprinkled around, but if you average the chimps out,

会发现这些数据非常非常相近，差距仅在0.01之内

they're really close, within .01.

数据相近度超过了任何一个我们曾观察过的物种

They're actually closer than any species we've observed.

What about humans? You think you're smarter than a chimpanzee?

那么人类呢？你认为你是比猩猩聪明的吗？

这里有绿色和蓝色两组人

Here's two human groups in green and blue.

他们所匹配的十分接近50—50，他们并没有获得如此相似的结果

They're closer to 50-50; they're not responding to payoffs as closely.

And also if you study their learning in the game,

并且如果你知道他们在游戏中的想法

会发现，他们对这些奖励并不敏感

they aren't as sensitive to previous rewards.

黑猩猩比人类表现得更好

The chimps play better than the humans, in terms of adhering to game theory.

对对策论更为贴近，有更直观的感受

这是两组不同的人

And these are two different groups of humans, from Japan and Africa;

来自日本和非洲。他们的反应就相对比较乐观

they replicate quite nicely.

其中没有一个人相近，就好像猩猩一样

None of them are close to where the chimps are.

所以今天我们可以在这里学习到

So, some things we learned:

people seem to do a limited amount of strategic thinking using theory of mind.

人们所用到的利用的思维理论进行的

战略性思维十分有限

We have preliminary evidence from bargaining

我们有一些关于协商谈判的初步数据证明

that early warning signs in the brain might be used to predict

大脑警示系统被用来预测

是否这里会有一个耗钱的冲突

whether there'll be a bad disagreement that costs money,

但是猩猩相比人类，是更好的竞争者

and chimps are "better" competitors than humans,

从对策论上可以这么判断

as judged by game theory.

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）