Are we in control of our decisions? | Dan Ariely

譯者: Peiru Liao 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior.

我要談的主題是非理性行為

Not yours, of course -- other people's.

當然不是談你們的非理性行為，談別人的

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

So after being at MIT for a few years,

在麻省理工學院待了數年後，

I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting.

我發現寫學術文章不是很刺激的一回事。

You know, I don't know how many of those you read,

我不知道你們閱讀了多少學術文章。

但閱讀和寫這些文章並不有趣。

but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write --

even worse to write.

寫尤甚。

So I decided to try and write something more fun.

因此我決定嘗試寫一些更有趣的東西，

And I came up with an idea that I would write a cookbook.

並且想到不如寫一本烹飪書。

And the title for my cookbook was going to be,

書的標題是

「餐不餘屑： 在廚房水槽上進餐的藝術。」

"Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink."

(笑聲)

(Laughter)

And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen.

這本書是透過廚房看人生，

I was quite excited about this.

而我對於這個題目相當感興趣。

I was going to talk a little bit about research,

我打算寫一點關於研究和廚房的事。

a little bit about the kitchen.

我們在廚房裡做好多事，我覺得這會非常有趣。

We do so much in the kitchen, I thought this would be interesting.

我寫了幾個章節，

I wrote a couple of chapters, and took it to MIT Press and they said,

然後把它拿給麻省理工學院出版社看。他們說：

「很可愛，但不適合我們。 去找其他出版社吧。」

"Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else."

I tried other people, and everybody said the same thing,

我試了不同的出版社，大家都是說：

「很可愛的書，但不適合我們。」

"Cute. Not for us."

Until somebody said,

直到有人說：

"Look, if you're serious about this,

「欸，如果你是認真的，

you have to write about your research first; you have to publish something,

你就必須先寫一本關於你的研究的書。你必須先發表一些東西，

then you'll get the opportunity to write something else.

然後才有機會寫其他東西。

只有這個辦法。」

If you really want to do it, you have to do it."

我說：「我真的不想寫我的研究。

I said, "I don't want to write about my research.

I do it all day long,

那是我整天在寫的啊，我想寫別的，

I want to write something a bit more free, less constrained."

一些比較自由、比較不拘謹的題目。」

And this person was very forceful and said,

那個人非常堅持地說：

"Look, that's the only way you'll ever do it."

「 聽好：這是你唯一的方法了。」

So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it --"

然後我說：「好，如果我真的需要這樣做．．．」

I had a sabbatical.

我請了假。 我說：「如果沒別的辦法，

I said, "I'll write about my research, if there's no other way.

那我會先寫研究，然後就可以寫烹飪書了。」

And then I'll get to do my cookbook."

然後我寫了關於我研究的書，

So, I wrote a book on my research.

結果我卻發現挺有趣的。有兩個原因：

And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways.

First of all, I enjoyed writing.

首先，我喜歡寫作。

But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people.

但最有趣的是，

我開始從別人身上學習。

It's a fantastic time to write,

寫作很棒

because there's so much feedback you can get from people.

因為可以從別人身上得到好多回應

People write to me about their personal experience,

有人寫信述說他們的個人經驗，

and about their examples, and where they disagree,

他們的例子，他們不同意我的地方

and their nuances.

以及一些精細的見解。

And even being here -- I mean, the last few days,

甚至在這裡的這幾天

I've known heights of obsessive behavior

我才知道

I never thought about.

原來強迫症可以這麼嚴重

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Which I think is just fascinating.

我覺得這實在太有趣了

I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior,

我來講講非理性行為

and I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion

先從一些錯視的例子開始

as a metaphor for rationality.

作為理性錯覺的比喻

So think about these two tables.

請大家看一下這兩張桌子

And you must have seen this illusion.

你們已經看到這張錯視圖

If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left,

哪一個比較長：左邊桌子的垂直線，

還是右邊桌子的水平線？

or the horizontal line on the table on the right,

which one seems longer?

哪個看起來比較長？

Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer?

有人覺得左邊的比較不長嗎？

No, right? It's impossible.

沒有吧？不可能的

But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes.

但錯視圖的好處就在，我們能輕易地証明錯誤

So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help.

我可以加一些線。沒啥幫助

I can animate the lines.

我可以移動這些線

And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines,

讓你們相信我沒有縮短這些線

which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you.

而我真的沒有。這證明你們的眼睛騙了你們

Now, the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away,

最有趣的是

當我把這些線拿走後

it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute.

就好像你們剛剛那一分鐘都沒學到任何東西

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

You can't look at this and say, "Now I see reality as it is."

你沒辦法看著圖說：「OK，我現在能看到真正的長度了。」

Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer.

對吧？這是沒辦法克服的

你沒辦法覺得它真的比較長

Our intuition is really fooling us

我們的直覺一再地、用可預期的方式在愚弄我們

in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way.

and there is almost nothing we can do about it,

而我們沒辦法改變

aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it.

除了拿一把尺來量

Here's another one. It's one of my favorite illusions.

另一個例子。這是我最喜歡的錯覺之一。

What color is the top arrow pointing to?

上方的箭頭指的是什麼顏色？

棕色。謝謝

Audience: Brown. Dan Ariely: Brown. Thank you.

下面的呢？黃色

The bottom one? Yellow.

但它們其實是一模一樣的

Turns out they're identical.

Can anybody see them as identical?

有人覺得是一模一樣的嗎？

Very, very hard.

非常難

I can cover the rest of the cube up.

我可以把剩下的立方體遮起來

If I cover the rest of the cube, you can see that they are identical.

遮起來之後，你們可以看到是一樣的

If you don't believe me, you can get the slide later

如果不相信我，可以等下拿這張投影片

剪貼一下，就會發現它們是一樣的

and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical.

But again, it's the same story, that if we take the background away,

這和上個例子一樣

如果我們移除背景

the illusion comes back.

錯覺又會回來。

There is no way for us not to see this illusion.

我們沒有辦法不看到錯覺

I guess maybe if you're colorblind, I don't think you can see that.

如果你色盲，我想你可能看不到

I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor.

請你們把錯覺想成是一個譬喻

Vision is one of the best things we do.

視覺是我們最出色的能力之一

We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision --

我們大腦的很大一部分是掌管視覺

bigger than dedicated to anything else.

比其他的部分都還要大

We use our vision more hours of the day than anything else.

每天多在"看"的時間比其他事多很多

We're evolutionarily designed to use vision.

人類的進化使我們擅長視力

And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision,

如果我們很擅長的視覺，都會發生這些

which we're so good at,

可預期的、重複的錯誤

what are the chances we won't make even more mistakes

那我們對自己不擅長的東西

in something we're not as good at, for example, financial decision-making.

犯錯的機會就會更大了

比如說，財務決策

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do,

財務決策和物種進化沒有關係

we don't have a specialized part of the brain for,

大腦並沒有專門管財務決策的部份

也沒有花很多時間在財務決策上

and we don't do that many hours of the day.

而我的論點是，在這些情況下

The argument is in those cases,

it might be that we actually make many more mistakes.

我們很可能犯了更多的錯誤

And worse -- not having an easy way to see them,

更糟的是，並沒有簡單的方法能察覺錯誤

because in visual illusions, we can easily demonstrate the mistakes;

在錯視上，我們能很容易地證明錯誤

in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder

在認知錯覺上，要證明錯誤

to demonstrate the mistakes to people.

卻是難的多

So I want to show you some cognitive illusions,

現在我要用同樣的方法示範認知錯覺

or decision-making illusions, in the same way.

也可以稱為決策錯覺

And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences.

這是我最喜歡的社會科學實驗之一

It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein.

這是從Johnson和Goldstein的研究裡來的

It basically shows the percentage of people who indicated

基本上是顯示

有多少比例的人

they would be interested in donating their organs.

有興趣捐贈器官

These are different countries in Europe.

這些是不同的歐洲國家。而你可以

You basically see two types of countries:

看到有兩種不同的國家

countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot;

右邊國家很多人表示願意捐贈器官

and countries on the left that seem to giving very little,

而左邊國家就很少人願意

or much less.

或者說少很多

The question is, why?

重點是，為什麼？為什麼有些國家捐很多

Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little?

而有些國家捐很少？

When you ask people this question,

當你問人們這個問題的時候

they usually think that it has to be about culture.

他們通常以為答案和文化有關

對吧？你有多關心別人？

How much do you care about people?

Giving organs to somebody else

捐獻自己的器官給別人

is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are.

基本上就代表你有多關心這個社會

Or maybe it's about religion.

或者和宗教有關

But if you look at this plot,

但如果你看這張圖

you can see that countries that we think about as very similar,

可以發現，我們以為很相似的國家

actually exhibit very different behavior.

其實做出非常不同的行為

For example, Sweden is all the way on the right,

例如，瑞典在最右邊

and Denmark, which we think is culturally very similar,

而我們覺得丹麥和它在文化上很相近

is all the way on the left.

但丹麥卻在最左邊

Germany is on the left, and Austria is on the right.

德國在左邊，而奧地利卻在右邊

The Netherlands is on the left, and Belgium is on the right.

荷蘭在左邊，比利時卻在右邊

And finally, depending on your particular version

最後，每個人對歐洲的認知

of European similarity,

可能不相同，

you can think about the U.K. and France as either similar culturally or not,

有人覺得英國和法國的文化很相似，有人覺得很不同

but it turns out that with organ donation, they are very different.

但在器官捐贈上，他們是很不同的

By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story.

對了，荷蘭人很有趣

You see, the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group.

你看，荷蘭是少人捐贈器官的國家之中比例最高的

It turns out that they got to 28 percent

但也只有28%而已

after mailing every household in the country a letter,

在給全國的家庭都寄信，

begging people to join this organ donation program.

求他們加入器官捐贈計畫後，只有28%

You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far."

大家都知道這個諺語吧，『靠哀求得到的有限』

It's 28 percent in organ donation.

在捐贈器官上，『有限』就等於28%

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But whatever the countries on the right are doing,

但右邊國家的表現

they're doing a much better job than begging.

比哀求來的好太多了

So what are they doing?

他們到底做了什麼呢？

Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV.

原來這跟監理處的一張表格有關

And here is the story.

是這樣的

The countries on the left have a form at the DMV

左邊國家在監理處拿到的表格

that looks something like this.

看起來像這樣

"Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program."

如果你願意參加器官捐贈計畫

請在框框中打勾

And what happens?

結果呢？

People don't check, and they don't join.

他們不打勾。所以他們就不參加

The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot,

右邊捐很多的國家

have a slightly different form.

他們的表格有點不同

It says, "Check the box below if you don't want to participate ..."

上面寫：如果你不想參加，就在框框打勾

Interestingly enough, when people get this,

有趣的是，當人們拿到表格時

他們還是不打勾。但是現在他們參加了

they again don't check, but now they join.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now, think about what this means.

想想它代表的意思

You know, we wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions.

早上起來，我們覺得自己要做很多決定

We wake up in the morning and we open the closet;

我們早上醒來，打開衣櫃

we feel that we decide what to wear.

覺得自己必須決定穿什麼

we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat.

打開冰箱，覺得自己必須決定吃什麼

What this is actually saying,

但事實上是

is that many of these decisions are not residing within us.

很多的決定都不是我們控制的

They are residing in the person who is designing that form.

而是設計那張表格的人

When you walk into the DMV,

當你走進監理處

the person who designed the form will have a huge influence

設計那張表格的人將會大大地影響

on what you'll end up doing.

你的未來

Now, it's also very hard to intuit these results.

而這些結果也很難用直覺預測。想想看

Think about it for yourself.

How many of you believe

你們多少人相信

that if you went to renew your license tomorrow,

如果你們明天去換新駕照

and you went to the DMV,

你走進監理處

and you encountered one of these forms,

拿到這些表格

that it would actually change your own behavior?

它們真的可以改變你的行為？

Very hard to think that it would influence us.

非常難相信我們會被影響

We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them."

我們會說：『喔這些好笑的歐洲人當然會被影響』

但當我們碰到同樣情況時

But when it comes to us,

we have such a feeling that we're in the driver's seat,

我們卻覺得一切由自己主導

覺得一切操之在己

such a feeling that we're in control and we are making the decision,

我們是做決定的人

that it's very hard to even accept the idea

而很難接受

事實上我們擁有的

that we actually have an illusion of making a decision,

是做決定的錯覺，而不是真的決定權

rather than an actual decision.

Now, you might say,

而你可能會說

"These are decisions we don't care about."

這些都是不重要的決定

In fact, by definition, these are decisions

這些決定

about something that will happen to us after we die.

是決定我們死後會如何

How could we care about something less

有什麼事情

than about something that happens after we die?

比我們死後的事更無關緊要呢？

So a standard economist, somebody who believes in rationality,

所以一個典型的、相信理性的經濟學家

would say, "You know what?

可能會說：『你知道嗎？提起鉛筆

The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a "V" is higher

打一個勾所付出的代價

than the possible benefit of the decision,

都比這個決定重要多了

so that's why we get this effect."

所以我們才得到這種結果

(Laughter)

但事實上，並不是因為這決定很簡單

But, in fact, it's not because it's easy.

It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care.

並不是因為它不重要，也不是因為我們不在乎

It's the opposite. It's because we care.

正好相反。是因為我們在乎

It's difficult and it's complex.

因為這決定很難又很複雜

And it's so complex that we don't know what to do.

複雜到我們不知道該怎麼辦

And because we have no idea what to do,

因為我們不知道該怎麼辦

we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.

我們就選了既定的選項

I'll give you one more example.

這邊有另一個例子

This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Shafir.

出自於 Redelmeier和Schaefer的研究

And they said, "Would this effect also happens to experts?

他們說這個現象也發生在專家身上

People who are well-paid, experts in their decisions,

那些高薪的決策專家

and who make a lot of them?"

也常常犯

And they took a group of physicians.

Redelmeier和Schaefer找來一群醫生

They presented to them a case study of a patient.

給他們看一個病人的個案

They said, "Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer.

這是病人，67歲的老農夫

He's been suffering from right hip pain for a while."

他的右髖部已經痛了很久

And then, they said to the physicians,

然後他們告訴這群醫生

"You decided a few weeks ago

「幾個禮拜前，你們確定

that nothing is working for this patient.

沒有藥對這位病人有效

All these medications, nothing seems to be working.

所有的藥物都沒有效

So you refer the patient for hip replacement therapy.

所以你決定讓他做髖部移植

Hip replacement. Okay?"

髖部移植。OK?」

So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced.

所以病人即將接受髖部移植了

Then they said to half of the physicians,

然後他們跟一半的醫生說，

"Yesterday, you reviewed the patient's case,

「昨天你們看了這病例

and you realized that you forgot to try one medication.

結果發現你們忘了試一種藥

You did not try ibuprofen.

忘記試布洛芬

What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen?

怎麼辦呢？把病人叫回來試布洛芬嗎？

Or do you let him go and have hip replacement?"

還是讓他接受髖部移植？

Well, the good news is that most physicians in this case

好消息是，在這個例子裡，幾乎全部的醫生

decided to pull the patient and try ibuprofen.

都決定要試新的藥

Very good for the physicians.

這些醫生做的很好

To the other group of physicians, they said,

但他們又對另一半的醫生說

"Yesterday when you reviewed the case, you discovered there were two medications

「昨天你們看了個病例

結果發現你們忘了試兩種藥

you didn't try out yet -- ibuprofen and piroxicam."

布洛芬和匹洛西卡。」

You have two medications you didn't try out yet.

他們說：「還有兩種藥你們沒試過。怎麼辦呢？

What do you do? You let him go, or you pull him back?

放棄嘗試，或者把病人叫回來？

And if you pull him back, do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?"

如果把病人叫回來，該試布洛芬還是匹洛西卡呢？」

Now, think of it:

想一想，這個決定

This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement,

如果是髖部移植，對醫生來說很容易下決定

but pulling him back, all of the sudden it becomes more complex.

但如果叫病人回來，決定就變得很複雜

There is one more decision.

他們還要多做一個決定

What happens now?

所以結果呢？

The majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go

大部分的醫生決定讓病人接受

for a hip replacement.

髖部移植

I hope this worries you, by the way --

我希望你們有受到警惕

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

when you go to see your physician.

看醫生的時候請小心

The thing is that no physician would ever say,

沒有醫生會說

"Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement."

「布洛芬，匹洛西卡，髖部移植......

就做髖部移植吧。」

But the moment you set this as the default,

但是當髖部移植是預設值的時候

it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing.

它對人們最後的決定就有很大的影響

I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making.

讓我給你們一些其他非理性決策的例子

Imagine I give you a choice:

假如我讓你們選

Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome, all expenses paid --

週末的時候去羅馬渡假

花費全免

hotel, transportation, food, a continental breakfast, everything --

飯店，交通，食物，早餐

歐式早餐等等

or a weekend in Paris?

或是週末去巴黎渡假

Now, weekend in Paris, weekend in Rome -- these are different things.

去巴黎和去羅馬渡假是兩個不同的事

They have different food, different culture, different art.

他們有不同的食物，文化，藝術

假如我現在再加一個選項

Imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted.

一個沒有人想要的選項

Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome,

假如我說：「去羅馬渡假，

a weekend in Paris,

去巴黎渡假，或是車被偷？」

or having your car stolen?"

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen,

很可笑吧？車被偷怎麼會影響

in this set, influence anything?

你的決定呢？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this?

但如果這個額外的選項

並不是車被偷呢？

What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid,

如果我是問你：去羅馬渡假，花費全免

transportation, breakfast,

交通，早餐

but it doesn't include coffee in the morning?

但不包括早上的咖啡

If you want coffee, you have to pay for it yourself, it's two euros 50.

如果你想喝要自付，一杯2.5歐元

(Laughter)

現在，

Now in some ways,

given that you can have Rome with coffee,

如果可以選羅馬渡假加免費咖啡

why would you possibly want Rome without coffee?

怎麼會有人想選羅馬渡假不加咖啡呢？

It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option.

就像車被偷一樣，是個不利選項

But guess what happened?

但結果呢？一旦增加羅馬渡假不加咖啡的選項後

The moment you add Rome without coffee,

羅馬加咖啡就變得更吸引人了，大家都選。

Rome with coffee becomes more popular, and people choose it.

The fact that you have Rome without coffee

不加咖啡的選項

makes Rome with coffee look superior,

事實上讓加咖啡的選項看起來更棒了

and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris.

而且甚至超越巴黎渡假的選項

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Here are two examples of this principle.

還有另外兩個例子

This was an ad in The Economist a few years ago

幾年前，經濟學人網站刊了個廣告

that gave us three choices:

給你三個選擇

an online subscription for 59 dollars,

線上訂閱要59美元

a print subscription for 125 dollars,

紙本訂閱要125美元

or you could get both for 125.

或者兩種都訂閱，125美元

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now I looked at this, and I called up The Economist,

我看了以後打電話給經濟學人

and I tried to figure out what they were thinking.

想知道他們在想什麼

And they passed me from one person to another to another,

他們一直轉接我的電話

until eventually I got to the person who was in charge of the website,

最後我聯絡上負責網站的人

and I called them up, and they went to check what was going on.

打電話給他們後，他們去檢查發生了什麼事

The next thing I know, the ad is gone, no explanation.

等我再去看，廣告就不見了。完全沒有解釋

So I decided to do the experiment

所以我決定做一個

that I would have loved The Economist to do with me.

我本來希望經濟學人和我一起做的實驗

I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students.

我把廣告拿給100個麻省理工的學生看

I said, "What would you choose?"

我問：「你選哪一個？」

These are the market shares -- most people wanted the combo deal.

這是比例。大部分的人都選組合套餐。

Thankfully, nobody wanted the dominant option.

還好沒有人選不利選項

That means our students can read.

代表我們的學生閱讀能力沒問題

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But now, if you have an option that nobody wants,

但如果其中一個選項是沒有人想要的

you can take it off, right?

我們就能把它拿掉，對吧？

So I printed another version of this,

所以我印了這個版本的

where I eliminated the middle option.

把中間的選項拿掉

I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happened:

拿給不同的100個學生看。結果是

Now the most popular option became the least popular,

最受歡迎的選項變成最不受歡迎的

and the least popular became the most popular.

而最不受歡迎的變成最受歡迎的

What was happening was the option that was useless,

我們說中間的選項沒有用

in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it.

是因為沒有人想選它

But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out

但它其實是有用的，因為它幫助我們決定

我們想要哪一個選項

what they wanted.

In fact, relative to the option in the middle,

和中間的選項（紙本訂閱125元）

which was get only the print for 125,

比較的話，

the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal.

紙本加線上125元看起來真是太划算了。

And as a consequence, people chose it.

所以大家才會選

The general idea here, by the way,

基本的道理是

is that we actually don't know our preferences that well.

我們不太清楚自己的喜好

And because we don't know our preferences that well,

因為我們不了解自己的喜好

所以我們很容易被外在的力量影響

we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces:

the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on.

預設值，別人給我們的選項，等等

One more example of this.

這裡有另外一個例子

People believe that when we deal with physical attraction,

說到外表，我們都相信

we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not,

看到一個人，我們就能馬上知道自己喜不喜歡他

if we're attracted or not.

他是不是吸引我們

This is why we have these four-minute dates.

所以現在才有快速約會這種東西

So I decided to do this experiment with people.

因此我決定做一個實驗

I'll show you images here, no real people, but the experiment was with people.

這裡有一些人的照片--不是真人

再找一些人來做這個實驗

I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry.

我讓他們看Tom和Jerry的照片

and I said, "Who do you want to date?

我說：「你們想跟誰約會？Tom還是Jerry?」

Tom or Jerry?"

But for half the people, I added an ugly version of Jerry.

但是其中一半的人，我加上了一個「醜版的Jerry」

I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive.

我用Photoshop把Jerry修的醜一點

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

For the other people, I added an ugly version of Tom.

另外一半人，我給他們看醜版的Tom

And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom

我想知道的是：醜版的Jerry和Tom

help their respective, more attractive brothers?

會不會讓原來的Jerry和Tom變得更受歡迎？

The answer was absolutely yes.

答案是肯定的

When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular.

人們看到醜版的Jerry時，原來的Jerry就變得有魅力

When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular.

人們看到醜版的Tom時，原來的Tom就變得有魅力

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This of course has two very clear implications

這對我們的日常生活

for life in general.

有兩個涵義

If you ever go bar-hopping, who do you want to take with you?

如果你要去酒吧喝酒，你會帶誰一起去？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You want a slightly uglier version of yourself.

一個比你醜一點的人

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Similar, but slightly uglier.

和你差不多，但是醜一點點

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The second point, or course, is that if somebody invites you to bar hop,

第二個涵義，當然就是

如果有人約你去酒吧，你就知道他們怎麼看你了

you know what they think about you.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now you get it.

你們慢慢懂了

What is the general point?

我想要告訴你們的是什麼？

The general point is that,

當我們講到經濟學的時候，

when we think about economics, we have this beautiful view of human nature.

我們總是想到光明的人性

"What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason!"

「人類真是完美！理性多麼高貴！」

We have this view of ourselves, of others.

我們對自己、對別人的觀感皆如此

The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less "generous" to people;

但行為經濟學的觀點

就對人性沒有這麼樂觀了

in fact, in medical terms,

事實上，用醫學方法來表示，這是我們眼中的人類

that's our view.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But there is a silver lining.

但事情總有光明面

The silver lining is, I think,

那就是

kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting.

為什麼行為經濟學會這麼有趣

Are we Superman, or are we Homer Simpson?

我們到底是超人，還是荷馬辛普森呢？

我們建造物質世界的時候

When it comes to building the physical world,

we kind of understand our limitations.

我們了解自己的能力有限

We build steps.

我們蓋樓梯。我們製造那些

And we build these things that not everybody can use, obviously.

不是每個人都會用的東西

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We understand our limitations,

因為我們了解自己的極限

and we build around them.

所以我們根據這些限制來建造世界

But for some reason, when it comes to the mental world,

但不知道為什麼，在思想上

when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stock markets,

例如當我們計畫醫療、退休、或是股市的時候

we somehow forget the idea that we are limited.

我們卻忘記能力是有限的

I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations

如果我們能了解人類理性的限制

in the same way we understand our physical limitations,

如同我們了解生理上的限制一樣

even though they don't stare us in the face the same way,

雖然它們不像生理限制那樣明顯

我們就能夠創造更好的世界

we could design a better world, and that, I think,

這就是行為經濟學能帶來的希望

is the hope of this thing.

Thank you very much.

謝謝

(Applause)

（鼓掌）