Laurie Santos: How monkeys mirror human irrationality

譯者: Lin Su-Wei(林書暐) 審譯者: Adrienne Lin

I want to start my talk today with two observations

我今天要跟各位分享有關人類這個物種的

about the human species.

2個觀察結果。

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

第一個發現，你可能會覺得這超明顯的，

and that's that our species, Homo sapiens,

我們這個物種，靈長類，

is actually really, really smart --

真的非常非常聰明，

like, ridiculously smart --

聰明的很誇張，

like you're all doing things

你現在可以做的所有事情，

that no other species on the planet does right now.

目前地球上沒有其他物種可以做的到。

And this is, of course,

當然，

not the first time you've probably recognized this.

這絕對不是你第一次聽到這件事。

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

當然，除了聰明，我們還是個非常自大的物種。

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

所以我們才會講自己有多聰明。

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

我可以講出一堆偉人的名字，

from Shakespeare to Stephen Colbert

從莎士比亞到史提芬-科伯(美國知名主持人)

to point out things like the fact that

點出這些事情就像在講說

we're noble in reason and infinite in faculties

我們有高貴的理性、無窮的能力，

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

遠超過地球上任何生物的驚嘆成就。

when it comes to all things cerebral.

這一切都與大腦有關。

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

第二個有關我們人類這個物種的發現，

that I want to focus on a little bit more,

我想要特別說明這一點，

and that's the fact that

這個發現就是

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

即使我們真的很聰明，有時候還會蹦出更聰明的人，

we can also be incredibly, incredibly dumb

但是當涉及某些領域的決策時，

when it comes to some aspects of our decision making.

我們仍然會做出極度荒謬的蠢事。

Now I'm seeing lots of smirks out there.

我發現有些人在偷笑。

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

別擔心，我並不是在特別指名某某某

on any aspects of your own mistakes.

在某些領域方面的錯誤。

But of course, just in the last two years

不過，就在2年前，

we see these unprecedented examples of human ineptitude.

我就發現了一些人類史無前例的愚蠢行為。

And we've watched as the tools we uniquely make

我們用自己打造的獨特工具

to pull the resources out of our environment

從大自然裡挖出天然資源，

kind of just blow up in our face.

而我們正在自食這種行為的惡果。

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

我們也看過那我們特別建構的金融市場--

these markets that were supposed to be foolproof --

那個被認為是萬無一失的金融市場--

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

就這樣活生生的在我們眼前崩潰。

But both of these two embarrassing examples, I think,

我想，這2個令人尷尬的例子，

don't highlight what I think is most embarrassing

還並不是我心中

about the mistakes that humans make,

所認為最尷尬的人類行為，

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

我們可能都會覺得犯錯的來源是

are really just the result of a couple bad apples

壞蛋所做的偏差行為，

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

或「爆笑部落格(FAIL Blog)」裡張貼的那些行為。

But it turns out, what social scientists are actually learning

事實上，社會學家根據我們的行為做研究，

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

提出的相關研究顯示，

will actually make very specific mistakes.

人會犯一些特定的錯誤。

The errors we make are actually predictable.

其實我們所犯的錯都是可以預期的。

We make them again and again.

但我們卻讓它一而再的發生。

And they're actually immune to lots of evidence.

而且會對這種行為免疫。

When we get negative feedback,

當我們某個行為得到負面的回應時，

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

下一次當我們遇到同樣情形時，

tend to make the same errors.

我們還是會犯同樣的錯。

And so this has been a real puzzle to me

作為一個研究人類的學者，

as a sort of scholar of human nature.

這種現象真的讓我百思不得其解。

What I'm most curious about is,

而我最好奇的地方是，

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

像我們這麼聰明的物種，

capable of such bad

怎麼會一直犯錯，

and such consistent errors all the time?

甚至犯同樣的錯?

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

我們是最聰明的物種，但為什麼我們找不出原因?

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

在某種意義上，我們所犯的錯誤是從何而來?

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

稍微思考一下後，我找出幾種可能性。

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

第一個可能性是，根本不是我們的錯。

Because we're a smart species,

因為我們是聰明的物種，

we can actually create all kinds of environments

我們能創造出各式各樣

that are super, super complicated,

非常複雜的體制，

sometimes too complicated for us to even actually understand,

即使是我們一手創造的，

even though we've actually created them.

有時候弄得太複雜，連自己都搞不懂。

We create financial markets that are super complex.

像是，我們創造了超複雜的金融市場。

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

我們搞了一堆自己無法負荷的貸款條件。

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

若我們真的身處在一個無法應付的體制中，

in some sense makes sense that we actually

某些時候

might mess certain things up.

我們也許會把情況弄得更加混亂。

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

不過若真的情況一發不可收拾，

to the problem of human error.

我們有一種最簡易的通用解決方案。

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

我們會這樣講，好吧，

the kinds of technologies we can't deal with,

既然已經無法應付這個情況，

the kinds of environments that are bad --

那讓我們來想點法子吧--

get rid of those, design things better,

這法子就是丟掉它們吧，去設計別的體制，

and we should be the noble species

這樣才能讓我們

that we expect ourselves to be.

成為自己期望的高貴物種。

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

那另一種可能性，反而讓我有點擔憂，

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

也許不是體制亂不亂的問題。

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

也許是我們人類本身就有缺陷。

This is a hint that I've gotten

這個徵兆，

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

是我從社會學家，研究人類犯錯的過程中得到的。

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

我們發現，人類傾向用同樣的方式犯錯

exactly the same way, over and over again.

而且會一而再、再而三的發生。

It feels like we might almost just be built

這感覺好像我們

to make errors in certain ways.

會在某些領域不斷犯錯。

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

這就是讓我擔心的另一項可能性，

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

因為，若是我們本身就是無法捉摸，

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

那我們根本不知道要如何應對這樣的問題。

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

我們只能接受自己傾向犯錯的事實，

and try to design things around it.

然後想出新方法來修補錯誤。

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

這問題是我和我的學生想了解的。

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

所以究竟是可能性一還是可能性二?

What we need is a population

我們需要一個群體來實驗，

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

這群體要夠聰明，可以做許多決策，

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

但必須從未接觸過人為的系統，

any of the things that might mess us up --

沒接觸過會把我們搞瘋的體制，

no human technology, human culture,

沒有人類的技術、文化，

maybe even not human language.

甚至不用人類的語言。

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

這就是為什麼我們會找上這群傢伙。

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

這是我們其中一個伙伴，一隻褐色的僧帽猴。

These guys are New World primates,

牠們屬於新世界靈長類(註:根據演化分為新世界和舊世界)，

which means they broke off from the human branch

牠們大約在3500萬年前

about 35 million years ago.

跟人類分開演化。

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

這意思就是說你的曾曾曾曾曾曾....祖父，

with about five million "greats" in there --

大概5百萬個曾；

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

還有你的曾曾曾曾曾曾...祖母

grandmother with five million "greats" in there

大概5百萬個曾，

as Holly up here.

是跟畫面的荷莉出自同一物種。

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

各位請放寬心，這小傢伙跟我們幾乎是不同的，

but albeit evolutionary, relative.

即使我們在演化史上有深厚的關係。

The good news about Holly though is that

荷莉跟我們有完全不同的發展，

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

這對牠而言也是個好消息。

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

牠很聰明，很可愛的小動物，屬於靈長類，

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

而且牠沒有那些我們自己都搞不懂的東西。

So she's the perfect test case.

看來是個不錯的實驗對象。

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

那我們該把荷莉放在人類的哪一個情境呢?

Does she make the same mistakes as us?

牠是否會跟我犯同樣的錯誤呢?

Does she not learn from them? And so on.

牠是否不會從經驗中學得教訓呢?

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

這些都是我們想探討的問題。

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

我們在好幾年前就對這實驗非常期待。

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

我們想說丟給荷莉一些人類才有的問題，

see if she messes these things up.

看看牠會有什麼反應。

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

第一個問題來了，要從哪裡開始?

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

實驗對我們來說很好，但對人類就很難。

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

因為我們在各種不同領域會犯不同的錯誤。

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

所以，我們的實驗到底要從哪裡開始?

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

正好實驗開始時是在次貸風暴的時候，

around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news,

同時新聞也不斷的報導抵押品回收的消息，

we said, hhmm, maybe we should

我們想，也許

actually start in the financial domain.

就從金融的領域開始好了。

Maybe we should look at monkey's economic decisions

讓我們來觀察猴子在經濟方面的決策，

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

看看牠們是不是也會犯跟我們一樣的錯誤。

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

當然，第二個問題就隨之而來，

a little bit more methodological --

就是有關教學的問題，

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

各位可能不知道，

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

猴子是不使用貨幣的。因為各位沒跟猴子接觸過。

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

這就是為什麼當你在雜貨店或是在提款機前面時，

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

沒看過猴子排在你後面，牠們才不會做這種事情。

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

所以猴子不用錢這件事算是個問題。

How are we actually going to ask monkeys about money

若猴子不用錢，

if they don't actually use it?

那要怎樣讓猴子開始用錢?

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

我們就想，好吧，稍微忍耐一下，

and teach monkeys how to use money.

先從教猴子用錢開始。

So that's just what we did.

所以教學就開始了。

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

各位看到我手上拿的這個

of non-human currency.

就是非人類貨幣的基本單位。

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

我們在做這項研究的時候沒什麼創意，

so we just called it a token.

所以我們都叫它代幣。

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

我們在耶魯大學教猴子使用這些貨幣

to actually use with humans,

和人類做交易，

to actually buy different pieces of food.

教他們用來買不同種的水果。

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

看起來不起眼，也沒什麼價值

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

就像我們的硬幣一樣，用金屬做的。

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

就像各位旅行後帶回家的各種外幣，

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

一但你回到家，這錢就沒辦法用了。

It was useless to the monkeys at first

在猴子們了解能用代幣做什麼之前，

before they realized what they could do with it.

對猴子來說這東西一點用也沒有。

When we first gave it to them in their enclosures,

當我們首次把代幣放到籠子裏面時，

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

牠們撿了起來，看著這些代幣。

They were these kind of weird things.

這對牠們來說是很怪的東西。

But very quickly, the monkeys realized

不過很快的，猴子們很快的就瞭解到

that they could actually hand these tokens over

牠們可以用這些代幣

to different humans in the lab for some food.

跟實驗室裡的人換食物。

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

可以看到其中一隻猴子，五月天，就正在做這件事。

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

A圖到B圖是牠正對這些代幣感到一點好奇，

curious about these things -- doesn't know.

因為牠從來沒看過代幣。

There's this waiting hand from a human experimenter,

圖C是實驗人員伸出手在等著，

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

五月天很快的就懂了，看起來人類是想要這個代幣。

Hands it over, and then gets some food.

牠交出代幣，然後就拿到一些食物了。

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

不只是五月天，

at trading tokens with human salesman.

實驗室裡所有的猴子都懂。

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

下面一個小短片讓大家看看這情形。

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

牠是五月天。牠將使用代幣換食物，

and waiting happily and getting her food.

牠開心的等待，之後也順利拿到食物。

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

牠是菲力，猴子群的老大，是個大傢伙。

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

但也同樣耐心的等待食物的到來。

So the monkeys get really good at this.

可見猴子們對交易這件事挺在行的。

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

只需要一點點訓練牠們的表現就意外的好。

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

我們只是放手讓牠們自己做選擇。

The question is: is this anything like human money?

這時候的問題就是：這像人類的貨幣使用情形媽?

Is this a market at all,

市場運作就是這樣而已?

or did we just do a weird psychologist's trick

或是我們應該用奇特的心理手段

by getting monkeys to do something,

引誘猴子們去做一些事情，

looking smart, but not really being smart.

看似聰明又不用很聰明的事情。

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

所以我們想，如果這真是牠們的貨幣，用起來真的像錢，

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

猴子會做有怎樣的自然反應?

Well, you might actually imagine them

各位可以想像一下，

to do all the kinds of smart things

當牠們開始用貨幣彼此做交易的時候

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

就是開始作聰明人會做的事了。

You might have them start paying attention to price,

牠們會開始注意到價格，

paying attention to how much they buy --

注意到該用多少價格去買，

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

可以說是追蹤猴子幣的使用情形。

Do the monkeys do anything like this?

看看猴子們是否有做這些事情了呢?

And so our monkey marketplace was born.

猴子市集誕生了。

The way this works is that

這運作的方式如下，

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

我們讓猴子們生活在一個類似動物園的透明籠子裡。

When they get a hankering for some treats,

當牠們表現出想要做交易的時候，

we actually allowed them a way out

我們會讓牠們

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

移轉到一個可以進入市場的透明箱子裡。

Upon entering the market --

一進入這個市場---

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

這個市場可比人類的市場有趣多了，

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

因為，當猴子一進入這市場，

a human would give them a big wallet full of tokens

人類會給牠們一個裝滿代幣的錢包，

so they could actually trade the tokens

牠們可以用代幣

with one of these two guys here --

和畫面中的其中一個人做交易，

two different possible human salesmen

2個不同的銷售員，

that they could actually buy stuff from.

猴子們可以從他們身上買到不同東西。

The salesmen were students from my lab.

這2位是我實驗室裡的學生。

They dressed differently; they were different people.

不同人穿著不同衣服。

And over time, they did basically the same thing

隨著時間推移，銷售人員會一直做同樣的事情，

so the monkeys could learn, you know,

所以猴子就能學習到

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

誰賣的是什麼價格，誰比較可靠等等之類的事情。

And you can see that each of the experimenters

各位能看到這2位銷售人員

is actually holding up a little, yellow food dish.

都拿著一個小小的黃色食物盤，

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

猴子可以用一個代幣買盤子裡的東西。

So everything costs one token,

其實每個商品都是價值一個代幣，

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

但有時候一個代幣可以買到比較多的東西，

sometimes more grapes than others.

也就是買到比較多的葡萄。

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

讓我給各位看看這個猴子市集的運作情形。

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

這是從猴子的視點來錄製，所以比較矮。

But here's Honey.

牠是小可愛。

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

她有點不耐煩的等待市場開張。

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

突然間市場開張了，牠有2個選擇：買1個葡萄或2個葡萄。

You can see Honey, very good market economist,

各位可以發現小可愛是個很棒的市場經濟學家，

goes with the guy who gives more.

牠跟賣較多葡萄的人做交易了。

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

牠可以幫我們的財務學教授上課了。

So not just Honey,

不只是小可愛，

most of the monkeys went with guys who had more.

大多數的猴子都會跟葡萄較多的人做交易。

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

大多數的猴子都會跟持有較好食物的人交易。

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

開始與猴子作買賣後，我們發現猴子會專注在這件事情上。

They really cared about their monkey token dollar.

牠們會在意猴子幣的真正價值。

The more surprising thing was that when we collaborated with economists

最令人驚訝的是，當我們開始與經濟學家合作

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

觀察猴子使用經濟工具的情形時，

they basically matched, not just qualitatively,

不管是在質性研究上，

but quantitatively with what we saw

還是在量性研究上，

humans doing in a real market.

牠們的使用情形與我們人類在市場上做的一樣。

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

以至於在量性的研究上，

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

你根本沒辦法分辨出這數據結果是人類的還是猴子的。

And what we'd really thought we'd done

我們已經成功做到

is like we'd actually introduced something

引介給猴子一些東西，

that, at least for the monkeys and us,

至少猴子與我們

works like a real financial currency.

將代幣運作的跟金融貨幣差不多。

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

另一個問題是：猴子會不會跟我們用一樣的方法把這制度搞亂?

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

其實我們有觀察到一些現象。

One thing we never saw in the monkey marketplace

第一，在猴子市場中我們沒發現到

was any evidence of saving --

任何儲蓄的證據，

you know, just like our own species.

沒發現像我們人一樣的儲蓄行為。

The monkeys entered the market, spent their entire budget

猴子進入市場後，會把所有錢花光，

and then went back to everyone else.

然後再跳回猴群中。

The other thing we also spontaneously saw,

我們自然而然的發現另一件事，

embarrassingly enough,

非常尷尬，

is spontaneous evidence of larceny.

就是自發性的竊盜行為。

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

猴子會用任何機會來偷代幣，

from each other, often from us --

偷同伴的、偷我們的。

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

我沒有必要在這方面做太多著墨，

but things we spontaneously saw.

但是我們看到了這個行為。

So we said, this looks bad.

這看起來很糟糕。

Can we actually see if the monkeys

我們是否能夠看到

are doing exactly the same dumb things as humans do?

猴子們做出跟人類一樣愚蠢的事情?

One possibility is just kind of let

有個方法是先創立猴子金融市場，

the monkey financial system play out,

然後再讓這個市場停擺，

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

不過，這樣做實驗可能得耗上好幾年。

We were a little impatient so we wanted

我們有點等不及，

to sort of speed things up a bit.

所以我們讓實驗進行的快一點。

So we said, let's actually give the monkeys

我們就想，那就給這些小猴子們

the same kinds of problems

面對一些問題，

that humans tend to get wrong

這些問題是人類經常會犯錯的

in certain kinds of economic challenges,

一些經濟議題，或是

or certain kinds of economic experiments.

一些經濟的試驗。

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

想要了解人類是怎麼犯錯的，

is to actually do it yourself,

最棒的方式就是自己做一次。

I'm going to give you guys a quick experiment

所以我要給各位一個小試驗，

to sort of watch your own financial intuitions in action.

請各位用你的財務直覺來回答。

So imagine that right now

請各位現在想像一下，

I handed each and every one of you

我給現場每個人各1千美金，

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

用10張百元鈔票成一捆的1千美金。

Take these, put it in your wallet

把它放進你的皮夾裡

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

花點時間想想你要拿這筆錢做什麼。

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

這是你的錢了，你可以買任何想要的東西。

Donate it, take it, and so on.

捐出去，花掉，隨便你。

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

不錯吧?不過再給你另一個機會，讓你能拿1千美金以上的錢。

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

第一種選擇：冒個險拿多一些，

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

我用丟猴子代幣來決定這個選擇的結果 。

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

如果代幣出現頭像，你可以多得1000美金。

If it comes up tails, you get nothing.

如果出現字面，你就只有本金。

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

有機會拿到比較多，但是要冒點風險。

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

而另一個較安全的選擇：讓你再拿一筆確切的金額。

I'm just going to give you 500 bucks.

不過只能拿500美金。

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

你可以把這筆錢放在皮夾或是馬上花掉。

So see what your intuition is here.

你的直覺決定好了嗎?

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

大部分的人會選擇不冒險的選項。

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

這些人想說，我確定能拿1500美金幹麻還要去冒險?

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

這似乎是一個不錯的選擇，我選這個。

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

各位也許覺得這樣選沒錯阿，

People are a little risk-averse. So what?

人是風險趨避者，有問題嗎?

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

人是不是風險趨避者的問題，

about the same problem

請思考過另一個相似問題後，

set up just a little bit differently.

再來做判斷。

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

現在再想像一下，我現在給各位2000美金，

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

20張百元鈔票成一捆。

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

你剛剛想買的物品可以多買一倍。

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

想想這筆錢在皮夾裡的感覺。

And now imagine that I have you make another choice

現在，選擇的一刻又來了，

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

但這次，條件比較糟糕。

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

因為你將決定"失去金錢"的方式，

but you're going to get the same choice.

一樣要從中做個選擇。

You can either take a risky loss --

第一個選擇是有風險的損失--

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

一樣用丟硬幣，出現頭像，你會損失1000美金。

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

如果出現反面，你1毛都不用丟，2000美金好好放著。

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

或是不冒險，也就是說你乖乖把皮夾拿出來，

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

然後給我5張100元鈔票。

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

我看到很多人眉頭深鎖著喔。

So maybe you're having the same intuitions

測試各位的這個問題，

as the subjects that were actually tested in this,

也許各位有著同樣直覺的答案，

which is when presented with these options,

當這些選項攤開給大家選擇時，

people don't choose to play it safe.

人們不會選安全的方案，

They actually tend to go a little risky.

而會選擇冒險。

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

明明是有著同樣選擇的2種情境下，

the same choice.

後者竟然變得喜歡風險。

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

拿到1000或2000元的機會各50%，

or just 1,500 dollars with certainty.

或是100%拿到1500元。

But people's intuitions about how much risk to take

而人們對於風險多寡的直覺

varies depending on where they started with.

居然是來自一開始手上有多少籌碼來決定。

So what's going on?

這是怎麼回事?

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

恩，這答案來自

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

我們心裡層面上的2項偏誤。

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

一個是我們沒有足夠的時間去計算絕對價值。

You really have to do work to figure out,

你應該要找時間好好考慮清楚，

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

一個選擇是拿1000或2000，

one is 1,500.

一個是拿1500。

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

相反的，如果選項改成相對價值的話，

as options change from one time to another.

就比較容易釐清了。

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

選項改成："拿到更多"或"拿比較少"。

This is all well and good, except that

這樣的話很好，只不過

changes in different directions

稍微改變一下手法，

actually effect whether or not we think

就會影響我們對於

options are good or not.

選項是好是壞的觀感。

And this leads to the second bias,

這會引導出第二項偏誤，

which economists have called loss aversion.

經濟學家稱這個為"損失趨避"(loss aversion)。

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

這概念是說，我們會非常討厭任何損失。

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

我們會極度不願意失去任何金錢。

And this means that sometimes we'll actually

這點指出我們會轉移我們的偏好

switch our preferences to avoid this.

來避免任何損失。

What you saw in that last scenario is that

剛剛再第二個情境裏面

subjects get risky

人們會選擇冒險，

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

因為不想放過任何"零損失"的機會。

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

這也點出了我們對於風險的心態---

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

當我們進入"避免損失"的模式時，

we actually become more risky,

我們會變得更喜歡風險，

which can actually be really worrying.

這就是最令人擔憂的部份。

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

人類的負面行為也因此而暴露出來。

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

也是為什麼股票投資者會死抱著不斷下跌的股票，

because they're evaluating them in relative terms.

因為他們用相對價值來計算後得到的結論。

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

這也是為什麼房市裡的投資客不願意賣掉房子，

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

因為他們不想要房子貶值的時候賣掉。

The question we were interested in

我們感興趣的問題是

is whether the monkeys show the same biases.

猴子們是否也會有同樣的偏誤。

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

若我們設計同樣的問題在猴子市場裡，

would they do the same thing as people?

他們是否會做出跟人一樣的行為?

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

所以我們讓猴子在2個傢伙之間做選擇，

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

一位是安全的交易者，他會一直拿出同樣的商品量；

or guys who were risky --

另一位是有風險的交易者，

they did things differently half the time.

他有一半的時間會拿出不同商品。

And then we gave them options that were bonuses --

我們提供有紅利的選項---

like you guys did in the first scenario --

就像剛剛的第一情境---

so they actually have a chance more,

因此猴子們同樣也有機會拿到更多，

or pieces where they were experiencing losses --

或是嚐到一些損失，

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

實際上牠們會覺得自己會拿到比較多的葡萄。

And so this is what this looks like.

這是實驗的模樣。

We introduced the monkeys to two new monkey salesmen.

我們將2位新的猴子銷售員引介給猴子們。

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

左邊和右邊一開始都是拿出1粒葡萄，

so it looks pretty good.

看起來很公平。

But they're going to give the monkeys bonuses.

但是這2位會給猴子一些紅利。

The guy on the left is a safe bonus.

左邊提供的是安全紅利。

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

從頭到尾，他會多給猴子1粒葡萄。

The guy on the right is actually a risky bonus.

右邊的是提供風險紅利。

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

有時候猴子拿不到任何紅利，所以牠不會多拿任何葡萄。

Sometimes the monkeys get two extra.

但有時候猴子能多拿2粒葡萄。

For a big bonus, now they get three.

很棒的紅利，所以猴子能一次拿3粒葡萄。

But this is the same choice you guys just faced.

這跟剛剛給各位的實驗內容是一樣的。

Do the monkeys actually want to play it safe

那麼，猴子是會去選擇有安全紅利的交易，

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

就是那位每次交易都會提供同樣東西的人；

or do they want to be risky

或是，牠們會去選有風險的紅利

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

雖然要冒點險，有可能拿不到任何紅利，

but risk the possibility of getting no bonus.

但是若能拿到就賺翻了。

People here played it safe.

人類傾向選擇安全的一方。

Turns out, the monkeys play it safe too.

結果，沒想到猴子也會選擇安全的一方。

Qualitatively and quantitatively,

在質性研究和量化研究裡，

they choose exactly the same way as people,

在同樣的測試內容下，

when tested in the same thing.

猴子與人類有一致的行為反應。

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

各位也許會覺得，也許是因為猴子不喜歡冒險。

Maybe we should see how they do with losses.

也許我們應該看看猴子面對損失時的行為。

And so we ran a second version of this.

所以我們就做了第二種版本的實驗。

Now, the monkeys meet two guys

現在，猴子們會面對這2個傢伙，

who aren't giving them bonuses;

他們不會再給猴子紅利了；

they're actually giving them less than they expect.

他們會給拿走猴子預期的葡萄數。

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

所以他們一開始就拿出較多的葡萄。

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

一開始就拿出3粒葡萄；這是猴子最想看到的情形。

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

不過他們發現，這2個傢伙會給予比預期還少的數量。

They guy on the left is a safe loss.

左邊這位，他提供固定的損失量。

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

每次他都會固定少給猴子一粒葡萄，

and give the monkeys just two.

也就是只給他們2粒。

the guy on the right is the risky loss.

右邊這位提供有風險的損失量。

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

有時候一個都不會少，完全符合猴子期待，

but sometimes he actually gives a big loss,

但有時候他會拿走很多，

taking away two to give the monkeys only one.

也就是只給猴子1粒葡萄。

And so what do the monkeys do?

猴子們會怎麼決定?

Again, same choice; they can play it safe

跟剛才一樣，牠們可以作保險的交易，

for always getting two grapes every single time,

每次交易都拿固定的2粒葡萄，

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

或是做有風險的交易，拿1粒或拿3粒。

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

最值得我們注意的是，當提供給猴子們這種選擇時，

they do the same irrational thing that people do.

牠們出現跟人類同樣非理性的行為。

They actually become more risky

根據實驗人員的起始條件

depending on how the experimenters started.

猴子們變得傾向冒險。

This is crazy because it suggests that the monkeys too

這真是太瘋狂了，

are evaluating things in relative terms

因為猴子居然也用相對價值來評估，

and actually treating losses differently than they treat gains.

而且在面對損失和面對獲得之間有著非常不同的行為。

So what does all of this mean?

這帶來什麼啟示?

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

我們先做歸納，首先，

we can actually give the monkeys a financial currency,

我們給予猴子一種財務貨幣，

and they do very similar things with it.

然後教牠們做一些簡單的交易行為。

They do some of the smart things we do,

牠們會做出跟人類一樣聰明的事情，

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

也會做出跟人類一樣不太好的事情，

like steal it and so on.

像是偷錢之類的。

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

同時牠們也會做出跟人類一樣非理性的行為。

They systematically get things wrong

他們有條理地做出錯誤行為，

and in the same ways that we do.

就跟我們一樣。

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

今天演講中給各位的第一個結論，

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

如果你只聽到開頭的部份，你可能會想--

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

我回家後真該雇用一隻僧帽猴當我的財務大臣。

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

這傢伙的可愛程度遠超家裡的那位...

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

但你可千萬別這麼做，因為這些猴子的糊塗程度

as the human one you already have.

跟你家裡的那位差不多。

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

這是有點糟糕的..各位聽我說一下。

A little bad for monkey investors.

請猴子來當投資客不太好。

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

當然，各位笑的點在於人一樣不擅於當投資客。

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

這問題的答案在剛才就已經證明給大家看了。

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

而我們為了想了解這些錯誤從何而來，

And we started with the hope that maybe we can

就抱著某些希望，像是

sort of tweak our financial institutions,

在某種程度上調整我們的金融機構，

tweak our technologies to make ourselves better.

或調整我們的財務手法使自己過的更好。

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

但我們已經了解到其實這2種偏誤會深深的影響我們。

In fact, they might be due to the very nature

事實上，這些偏誤會影響我們這麼深，

of our evolutionary history.

因為它們在老早就深植在我們的進化過程中。

You know, maybe it's not just humans

各位，也許笨蛋不只是

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

圖中這進化鏈中最右邊的人類，

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

也許變笨蛋的來源是從古早就有了。

And this, if we believe the capuchin monkey results,

若我們相信這些針對猴子的實驗結果，

means that these duncey strategies

也就表示我們承認這種愚蠢對策

might be 35 million years old.

早在3500萬年前就出現了。

That's a long time for a strategy

這存在已久的對策

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

已經默默的影響我們很久。

What do we know about other old strategies like this?

我們對這類的對策了解多少?

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

我們了解的其中一項事實就是，我們很難去改變它。

You know, think of our evolutionary predilection

想一想我們最先進化的部份

for eating sweet things, fatty things like cheesecake.

就是懂得吃甜食、高油脂的食物，如起士蛋糕。

You can't just shut that off.

你沒辦法閉嘴不吃。

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

你沒辦法對著裝滿推車的點心說："我才不吃，這些令我作嘔。"

We're just built differently.

但人與人之間存在著差異性。

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

我們會追求自己認為好的事物。

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

所以我推測

when humans are perceiving

人們對於財務上的決策

different financial decisions.

也會有不同的認知見解。

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

你會傻愣愣地看持有的股票價格直線下墜，

when you're watching your house price go down,

或是看著自己持有的不動產貶值，

you're not going to be able to see that

而你不會去注意到事情的真相，

in anything but old evolutionary terms.

因為我們與生俱來就是有這樣的行為。

This means that the biases

這種心理上的偏差

that lead investors to do badly,

會讓投資者做出糟糕的決定，

that lead to the foreclosure crisis

所以像這次的次貸危機

are going to be really hard to overcome.

就變得很難去避免。

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

聽起來都是壞消息。那有沒有好消息呢?

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

我這裡是有一些好消息告訴各位。

Well, the good news, I think,

我想這個好消息就是，

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

就如同我在演講時的開頭就說的，

which is that humans are not only smart;

人類不只是聰明而已；

we're really inspirationally smart

我們比起生物界裡的其他動物，

to the rest of the animals in the biological kingdom.

都要聰明許多。

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

我們非常擅長克服我們先天上的不足---

you know, I flew over here in an airplane.

就像我是搭飛機來這裡。

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

我不需要把手當翅膀拍動來飛。

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

我帶著隱形眼鏡才能清楚看見各位。

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

不需要依賴我這雙大近視的眼睛。

We actually have all of these cases

我們有這麼多例子

where we overcome our biological limitations

都是用科技或其他方式來突破我們生物限制的事實，

through technology and other means, seemingly pretty easily.

讓一切看起來是這麼簡單。

But we have to recognize that we have those limitations.

但我們也必須了解自己的極限在哪裡，

And here's the rub.

而這是最難的地方。

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

就像卡謬曾說(1957年諾貝爾文學獎得主)：

who refuses to be what he really is."

"人是唯一搞不清楚自己是什麼的物種。"

But the irony is that

諷刺的是

it might only be in recognizing our limitations

我們得知道人類的極限在哪，

that we can really actually overcome them.

才能克服它們。

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

希望各位都能意識到自己的極限在哪，

not necessarily as unovercomable,

它並不是不可逾越，

but to recognize them, accept them

了解它，接受它，

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

然後發展出讓世人更了解人類極限的工具。

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

想要能激發出人類潛力

to achieve our own human potential

同時成為那種我們心裡所想達成的高貴物種，

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

這也許是唯一的辦法。

Thank you.

謝謝各位。

(Applause)

(掌聲)