Technology hasn't changed love. Here's why | Helen Fisher

譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: SF Huang

I was recently traveling in the Highlands of New Guinea,

我最近去新幾內亞高地，

and I was talking with a man who had three wives.

跟一位男士談話，他有三個老婆。

I asked him, "How many wives would you like to have?"

我問他：「你想要娶幾個太太？」

And there was this long pause,

在很長的停頓之後，

and I thought to myself,

我心想：

「他會說 5 個嗎？

"Is he going to say five?

Is he going to say 10?

還是 10 個？

還是 25 個？」

Is he going to say 25?"

And he leaned towards me

結果他靠過來

小聲對我說：「一個都不想。」

and he whispered, "None."

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Eighty-six percent of human societies permit a man to have several wives:

86% 的人類社會 允許男人有好幾位妻子：

polygyny.

一夫多妻制。

但是，這些文化中的大多數，

But in the vast majority of these cultures,

only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives.

只有 5% 到 10% 的男人 真的有多位妻子。

Having several partners can be a toothache.

有多位伴侶就像牙痛一樣。

In fact, co-wives can fight with each other,

事實上，妻妾間會互相爭寵，

有時候還會毒害別人的孩子。

sometimes they can even poison each other's children.

And you've got to have a lot of cows, a lot of goats,

而且你還得有很多牛、很多羊、

很多錢、很多土地，

a lot of money, a lot of land,

才能養得起一個後宮。

in order to build a harem.

我們是配對型的物種。

We are a pair-bonding species.

Ninety-seven percent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young;

97% 哺乳動物的親代 並沒有一起養育後代；

human beings do.

人類卻是如此。

I'm not suggesting that we're not --

我沒有說我們不...

我們性方面一定對伴侶忠實。

that we're necessarily sexually faithful to our partners.

我研究過 42 個文化中的外遇行為，

I've looked at adultery in 42 cultures,

I understand, actually, some of the genetics of it,

我其實了解外遇的某些遺傳原因，

and some of the brain circuitry of it.

還有造成這種行為的大腦迴路。

It's very common around the world,

這現象在全球很普遍，

but we are built to love.

但是我們天生就要愛。

How is technology changing love?

科技如何改變愛？

I'm going to say almost not at all.

我要說幾乎一點都沒有。

I study the brain.

我研究腦部。

我和同事將100多人 放進腦部掃描機中──

I and my colleagues have put over 100 people into a brain scanner --

people who had just fallen happily in love,

熱戀中的人，

people who had just been rejected in love

剛剛失戀的人，

and people who are in love long-term.

和談了長久戀愛的人。

And it is possible to remain "in love" long-term.

人長時間一直維持戀愛的感覺 的確是有可能的。

And I've long ago maintained

我很久前就主張，

that we've evolved three distinctly different brain systems

人類在交配和繁衍的過程中，

for mating and reproduction:

演化出三種迥然不同的腦部系統：

sex drive,

性慾、

feelings of intense romantic love

強烈又浪漫的愛、

and feelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner.

及對長期伴侶深深無盡的愛慕之情。

And together, these three brain systems --

把這三個腦部系統加在一起，

with many other parts of the brain --

再加上腦部的其它部分，

orchestrate our sexual, our romantic and our family lives.

譜出我們浪漫的性、愛與家庭生活。

But they lie way below the cortex,

但這三者深藏在皮質之下，

way below the limbic system where we feel our emotions,

遠在我們感受情緒、產生感情的

邊緣系統之下。

generate our emotions.

They lie in the most primitive parts of the brain, linked with energy,

它們藏在大腦最原始的地方，

與能量、專注、渴望、動機、 需求及慾望等連結在一起。

focus, craving, motivation, wanting and drive.

In this case,

以這個例子來說，

the drive to win life's greatest prize:

就是渴望贏得生命中最大獎賞：

a mating partner.

一名交配的伴侶。

They evolved over 4.4 million years ago among our first ancestors,

我們的始祖在這方面的演化 已經超過 440 萬年，

and they're not going to change if you swipe left or right on Tinder.

就算你在交友軟體 Tinder 左右滑動頁面，也不能改變。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

There's no question that technology is changing the way we court:

毫無疑問科技會改變 我們求愛的方式：

emailing, texting,

寫電郵、傳簡訊、

emojis to express your emotions,

用表情符號表達情感、

sexting,

發性愛簡訊、

"liking" a photograph, selfies ...

讚一張照片或是自拍等等。

我們看見求愛招術 有了新規則及新禁忌。

We're seeing new rules and taboos for how to court.

But, you know --

但是，你知道...

is this actually dramatically changing love?

這真的大幅改變了愛嗎？

What about the late 1940s,

那你怎麼看在 1940 年代晚期，

車子變得非常流行，

when the automobile became very popular

and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms?

我們突然有了車床族這回事？

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

How about the introduction of the birth control pill?

那避孕藥的問世又怎麼說？

Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin,

婦女從害怕意外懷孕 而名聲敗壞的威脅中解放出來，

women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality.

終於可以表達非常自然原始的性慾。

Even dating sites are not changing love.

甚至約會網站，也沒有改變愛。

I'm Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com,

我是約會網站 Match.com 的 首席科學顧問。

I've been it for 11 years.

我已經當了 11 年。

我一直跟他們說，他們也同意，

I keep telling them and they agree with me,

這不是約會網站。

that these are not dating sites,

they are introducing sites.

這應該是介紹網站。

當你坐在酒吧裡，

When you sit down in a bar,

in a coffee house,

咖啡廳裡，

on a park bench,

甚至坐在公園的長椅上，

your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened,

你古老的大腦馬上進入活動狀態， 就像一隻突然甦醒的貓，

and you smile

你微笑，

and laugh

談笑風生，

and listen

傾聽，

而且走路有風， 就像10萬年前的祖先一樣。

and parade the way our ancestors did 100,000 years ago.

We can give you various people --

我們可以提供各式各樣的人，

all the dating sites can --

所有的約會網站都可以，

but the only real algorithm is your own human brain.

但是，真正且唯一在盤算的 其實是你自己的大腦。

Technology is not going to change that.

科技不會改變這件事。

科技不會改變你決定愛誰。

Technology is also not going to change who you choose to love.

I study the biology of personality,

我研究個性生物學，

and I've come to believe

我開始相信，

that we've evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving,

我們已發展出四種 非常顯著的思維和行為方式，

linked with the dopamine, serotonin,

跟多巴胺、血清素

testosterone and estrogen systems.

睪固酮及雌激素連在一起。

So I created a questionnaire directly from brain science

所以，我從腦科學的角度 去設計了一份問卷，

to measure the degree to which you express the traits --

來測量你表達特質的程度──

the constellation of traits --

各種特質──

linked with each of these four brain systems.

與這四種腦部系統的關聯。

I then put that questionnaire on various dating sites

然後我把這份問卷放到

40 個國家的各個約會網站上。

in 40 countries.

Fourteen million or more people have now taken the questionnaire,

超過 1400 萬人填過這份問卷，

and I've been able to watch who's naturally drawn to whom.

我能藉此觀察哪些人 會自然而然地相互吸引。

And as it turns out,

結果是，

those who were very expressive of the dopamine system

多巴胺系統很強的人

tend to be curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic --

比較有好奇心、有創意、 自動自發、有活力──

I would imagine there's an awful lot of people like that in this room --

我可以想像在座 有很多像這樣的人──

they're drawn to people like themselves.

因為這種人，同類相吸。

有好奇心及創意的人 需要跟同類的人在一起。

Curious, creative people need people like themselves.

People who are very expressive of the serotonin system

血清素系統很強的人

tend to be traditional, conventional, they follow the rules,

比較傳統、保守，他們遵循規定，

他們尊重權威，

they respect authority,

他們也比較虔誠── 宗教性就在血清素系統內──

they tend to be religious -- religiosity is in the serotonin system --

and traditional people go for traditional people.

而且傳統的人也喜歡傳統的人。

In that way, similarity attracts.

也就是說，同類相吸。

In the other two cases, opposites attract.

另外兩個情況，則是異性相吸。

People very expressive of the testosterone system

睪固酮系統表現強的人

比較重分析、重邏輯、直接、果斷，

tend to be analytical, logical, direct, decisive,

而且他們喜歡相反特質的人：

and they go for their opposite:

they go for somebody who's high estrogen,

他們喜歡雌激素高的人，

somebody who's got very good verbal skills

語言能力非常強

及很會處理人際關係的人，

and people skills,

who's very intuitive

直覺性強的人，

and who's very nurturing and emotionally expressive.

以及很會照顧人、會表達情緒的人。

We have natural patterns of mate choice.

我們生來就具有擇偶的自然模式。

Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love.

現代科技不會改變 我們決定去愛誰。

But technology is producing one modern trend

但是科技的確創造了一種現代趨勢，

我認為特別重要。

that I find particularly important.

它與選擇的悖論這個觀念有關。

It's associated with the concept of paradox of choice.

For millions of years,

有百萬年之久，

we lived in little hunting and gathering groups.

人類是生活在狩獵 及採集的小團體內。

那時的人沒有機會

You didn't have the opportunity to choose

between 1,000 people on a dating site.

像我們一樣在約會網站中， 有上千個對象可選擇。

In fact, I've been studying this recently,

事實上，我最近就在研究這個，

and I actually think there's some sort of sweet spot in the brain;

我真的相信腦部的運作， 有所謂的「最佳選擇」；

I don't know what it is, but apparently, from reading a lot of the data,

我還不知道它是什麼，但很明顯， 在看了一大堆資料之後，

we can embrace about five to nine alternatives, and after that,

我們大約能接受5~9個選項， 超過這個數字之後，

you get into what academics call "cognitive overload,"

就會出現學術界稱為 「認知超載」的問題，

and you don't choose any.

然後就變成什麼都不選。

所以我認為，因為認知超載，

So I've come to think that due to this cognitive overload,

we're ushering in a new form of courtship

我們開闢了一種新的求愛法，

that I call "slow love."

我稱為「慢愛」。

I arrived at this during my work with Match.com.

我在 Match.com 的工作 讓我得到這個結論。

Every year for the last six years,

過去六年來，

每年我們都會做一項 「單身美國人」的研究。

we've done a study called "Singles in America."

We don't poll the Match population,

我們不對 Match 族群做民調，

we poll the American population.

我們對所有美國人做民調。

We use 5,000-plus people,

我們選出5千多人，

a representative sample of Americans based on the US census.

從美國人口普查中 選出具代表性的樣本。

We've got data now on over 30,000 people,

我們現在有超過3萬人的資料，

and every single year,

而且每一年，

I see some of the same patterns.

我都會看到同樣的模式。

Every single year when I ask the question,

每一年提問所得的結果是：

over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand --

超過 50% 的人有過一夜情，

不一定是在去年， 而是一生中是否曾有過；

not necessarily last year, but in their lives --

50 percent have had a friends with benefits

50% 的人曾經有過炮友；

during the course of their lives,

and over 50 percent have lived with a person long-term

超過 50% 的人在婚前 有長期同居的經驗。

before marrying.

Americans think that this is reckless.

美國人認為這太亂來了。

I have doubted that for a long time;

我對此結果也一直存疑。

the patterns are too strong.

但是，模式非常明顯。

There's got to be some Darwinian explanation --

這裡面一定有什麼達爾文式的解釋。

Not that many people are crazy.

沒有那麼多瘋狂的人！

And I stumbled, then, on a statistic that really came home to me.

我搞糊塗了，然後，一份統計 終於讓我明白這是怎麼回事。

It was a very interesting academic article

那是一份非常有意思的學術文章，

in which I found that 67 percent of singles in America today

我在裡面發現， 今天美國有 67% 的單身者，

who are living long-term with somebody,

與某人長期同居卻還不結婚，

have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce.

因為他們害怕離婚。

They're terrified of the social,

他們怕離婚後要承擔的社會、

legal, emotional,

法律、情感、

economic consequences of divorce.

及經濟後果。

So I came to realize that I don't think this is recklessness;

我終於明白，我不認為這是亂來，

I think it's caution.

我認為這是謹慎。

Today's singles want to know every single thing about a partner

現今，單身者想在婚前 了解伴侶的一切。

before they wed.

You learn a lot between the sheets,

在床笫之間，你會看到很多，

not only about how somebody makes love,

不僅是做愛的方式，

but whether they're kind,

還有他們是否體貼，

whether they can listen

是否會聆聽，

and at my age,

而且到了我這個年紀，

whether they've got a sense of humor.

還要看他們是否有幽默感。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

在有太多選擇的時代，

And in an age where we have too many choices,

我們不太擔心懷孕和疾病，

we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease

and we've got no feeling of shame for sex before marriage,

對婚前性行為也沒有羞恥感，

我認為人們用自己的步調來慢愛。

I think people are taking their time to love.

And actually, what's happening is,

而且其實，現在的狀況是，

我們看到是互結連理前的

what we're seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage

before you tie the knot.

預備承諾階段，被拉長了。

婚姻過去一向是一段關係的開始，

Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship,

now it's the finale.

現在則變成一段關係的終點。

But the human brain --

但是，人的腦

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

The human brain always triumphs,

人的腦總是贏家，

確實，今天的美國

and indeed, in the United States today,

86 percent of Americans will marry by age 49.

86% 的美國人會在 49 歲前結婚。

And even in cultures around the world where they're not marrying as often,

即使在世界各地 結婚不那麼頻繁的文化中，

他們最終也會與一位 長期伴侶定下來。

they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner.

So it began to occur to me:

所以這讓我想到：

during this long extension of the precommitment stage,

在這段拉長的預備承諾階段，

if you can get rid of bad relationships before you marry,

如果你能在婚前 甩掉一段不好的關係，

可能我們就會看到比較快樂的婚姻。

maybe we're going to see more happy marriages.

So I did a study of 1,100 married people in America --

所以，我研究了 1100 對美國夫婦，

not on Match.com, of course --

當然不是在 Match.com 上做，

and I asked them a lot of questions.

我問他們很多問題。

But one of the questions was,

其中一個問題是，

你會與你現在的配偶再結一次婚嗎？

"Would you re-marry the person you're currently married to?"

And 81 percent said, "Yes."

81% 的人說會。

In fact, the greatest change in modern romance and family life

事實上，現代愛情 與家庭生活最大的改變

不在科技。

is not technology.

甚至也不是慢愛。

It's not even slow love.

其實是女人湧入就業市場，

It's actually women piling into the job market

在全球各文化皆是。

in cultures around the world.

For millions of years,

幾百萬年來，

我們的祖先生活在 採集狩獵的小團體裡。

our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups.

女人通勤到工作場所 去採集水果蔬菜。

Women commuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables.

They came home with 60 to 80 percent of the evening meal.

她們回家時帶著六到八成的晚餐。

The double-income family was the rule.

雙薪家庭很平常。

And women were regarded as just as economically, socially

女人無論是在經濟、社會

或性方面都與男性一樣強大。

and sexually powerful as men.

Then the environment changed some 10,000 years ago,

然後環境在約一萬年前改變了，

we began to settle down on the farm

我們開始定居下來務農，

and both men and women became obliged, really,

男女兩性變得都有責任，真的，

to marry the right person,

要娶或嫁對人，

from the right background,

要背景相當，

from the right religion

要有對的信仰，

and from the right kin and social and political connections.

要門當戶對， 要有同樣的社會及政治圈。

Men's jobs became more important:

男人的工作變得更重要：

they had to move the rocks, fell the trees, plow the land.

他們必須搬石頭、砍樹、犁田。

They brought the produce to local markets, and came home

他們把農產品拿去市場賣，

回家時帶回等值的金錢。

with the equivalent of money.

Along with this,

隨之而來的是

we see a rise of a host of beliefs:

我們看到一些信念興起：

the belief of virginity at marriage,

婚姻守貞，

arranged marriages -- strictly arranged marriages --

媒妁之言──　 非常嚴格的父母指定婚約──

the belief that the man is the head of the household,

以及男人是一家之主，

that the wife's place is in the home

女人要主內，

and most important,

還有最重要的，

honor thy husband, and 'til death do us part.

要榮耀丈夫，至死不渝。

These are gone.

這些都沒了。

They are going, and in many places,

這些都漸漸消失了，

they are gone.

而且在很多地方， 這些已成為過去式。

We are right now in a marriage revolution.

我們現在正處於婚姻革命中。

We are shedding 10,000 years of our farming tradition

我們正在擺脫過去 一萬年來的傳統農業家庭，

and moving forward towards egalitarian relationships between the sexes --

朝著兩性平權邁進──

而我認為這與古人的精神非常相符。

something I regard as highly compatible with the ancient human spirit.

I'm not a Pollyanna;

我不是什麼樂天派的人；

there's a great deal to cry about.

還是有很多要大聲疾呼的地方。

我研究 80 種文化中的離婚，

I've studied divorce in 80 cultures,

I've studied, as I say, adultery in many --

我剛剛也說了我也研究通姦──

這裡有一大堆問題。

there's a whole pile of problems.

As William Butler Yeats, the poet, once said,

就像詩人葉慈曾說的：

「愛情是狡猾的東西。」

"Love is the crooked thing."

我還要加上： 「沒有人能活著出來！」

I would add, "Nobody gets out alive."

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

我們都有自己的問題。

We all have problems.

But in fact, I think the poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best.

但事實上，我認為 詩人藍道‧傑瑞形容得最傳神。

He said, "The dark, uneasy world of family life --

他說：「家庭生活中的枯索紛擾，

where the greatest can fail, and the humblest succeed."

會使強者技窮，謙者得勝。」

But I will leave you with this:

在結束前我想留給大家這個：

love and attachment will prevail,

愛情與戀慕會得勝，

technology cannot change it.

科技無法改變它。

And I will conclude by saying

我的總結就是

any understanding of human relationships must take into account

想要了解任何一種人際關係，

一定要把人類行為中 最有力的決定因素考慮進去：

one the most powerful determinants of human behavior:

the unquenchable,

就是那抑制不住、

adaptable

具適應性、

and primordial human drive to love.

及最原始的人類渴望：愛。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Kelly Stoetzel: Thank you so much for that, Helen.

凱莉：謝謝妳的演講，海倫。

As you know, there's another speaker here with us

這裡還有另一位講者，

that works in your same field.

跟妳研究相同的領域。

She comes at it from a different perspective.

她從不同的觀點來看這件事。

Esther Perel is a psychotherapist who works with couples.

精神治療師埃絲特．沛瑞爾 專門處理夫婦關係。

You study data,

妳研究數據資料，

埃斯特則研究

Esther studies the stories the couples tell her

夫婦在尋求協談幫助時 告訴她的故事。

when they come to her for help.

Let's have her join us on the stage.

歡迎她上台。

Esther?

埃斯特？

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So Esther,

埃斯特，

when you were watching Helen's talk,

妳在聽海倫的演講時，

was there any part of it

有任何與妳工作經驗所獲的心得

that resonated with you through the lens of your own work

互相契合的部分嗎？

that you'd like to comment on?

妳可以談一下嗎？

埃斯特：非常有意思，因為一方面

Esther Perel: It's interesting, because on the one hand,

the need for love is ubiquitous and universal.

對愛的需求，無所不在， 放諸天下皆準。

But the way we love --

但是我們愛的方法──

the meaning we make out of it --

愛的意義──

the rules that govern our relationships, I think,

支配我們關係的規則，我認為

are changing fundamentally.

正在從根本改變。

We come from a model that, until now,

直到今天為止，我們的模式

was primarily regulated around duty and obligation,

主要在規範責任和義務，

the needs of the collective and loyalty.

著重在集體的需求及忠誠。

And we have shifted it

而我們已經轉變到另一種模式，

to a model of free choice and individual rights,

有自由選擇及個人權利、

and self-fulfillment and happiness.

自我實現及幸福。

And so, that was the first thing I thought,

所以，我第一個想到的就是

that the need doesn't change,

需求本身不會改變，

but the context and the way we regulate these relationships

但是其環境背景 及我們規範關係的方式

changes a lot.

則有很大的改變。

On the paradox of choice --

選擇的悖論

you know, on the one hand we relish the novelty

你們都知道，我們一方面津津樂道於

新奇與好玩，

and the playfulness, I think,

to be able to have so many options.

可以有這麼多選擇。

And at the same time,

但是同時，

as you talk about this cognitive overload,

妳又談到認知超載，

I see many, many people who ...

我看過很多很多人，

who dread the uncertainty and self-doubt

因為有太多的選擇，

that comes with this massa of choice,

而引起的不確定感與缺乏自信，

進而產生所謂的社交控，

creating a case of "FOMO"

and then leading us --

使我們──

社交控，又稱錯失恐懼症， 怕錯過任何機會──

FOMO, fear of missed opportunity, or fear of missing out --

it's like, "How do I know I have found 'the one' --

就像：「我怎麼知道我已經 找到真命天子(女)？

the right one?"

命中註定那個對的人選呢？」

So we've created what I call this thing of "stable ambiguity."

所以，我們創造出我稱之為 「穩態曖昧」的一種東西。

Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to be alone

「穩態曖昧」就是你既太害怕獨處，

but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building.

但又不願意與人建立起親密關係。

It's a set of tactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship

這是一套策略，

盡可能地拉長一段似有若無的關係。

but also the uncertainty of the breakup.

So, here on the internet you have three major ones.

所以，在網路上你可以看到 三種主要的手法。

One is icing and simmering,

一種就是似冰或像溫火慢燉的關係，

which are great stalling tactics

這真是一種絕妙的拖延戰術，

that offer a kind of holding pattern

給你一種維持關係的模式，

既強調一段關係的未定性，

that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship

but at the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency

又同時給你足夠的安逸穩定感，

及足夠的自由 在不明確的界線上遊走。

and enough freedom of the undefined boundaries.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

對吧？

Yeah?

And then comes ghosting.

然後又有所謂幽靈。

And ghosting is, basically,

幽靈基本上就是

you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot,

你咻一聲就人間蒸發，

and you don't have to deal with the pain that you inflict on another,

你不用去處理 你加諸在別人身上的痛苦，

because you're making it invisible even to yourself.

因為你完全神隱，連自己都看不到！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

對吧？

Yeah?

So I was thinking -- these words came up for me as I was listening to you,

所以我在想──這些名詞 在我聽妳演講時跑出來，

like how a vocabulary also creates a reality,

創造出栩栩如生的畫面，

而且同時，

and at the same time,

that's my question to you:

這是我想問妳的問題：

Do you think when the context changes,

你是否認為在環境背景改變之後，

it still means that the nature of love remains the same?

愛的本質仍然不變？

你研究大腦， 而我研究人的關係及故事，

You study the brain and I study people's relationships and stories,

so I think it's everything you say, plus.

所以我想...的確就像你說的， 還不止。

But I don't always know the degree to which a changing context ...

但是我不太明白， 環境背景改變的程度...

Does it at some point begin to change --

它是在某個時間點開始改變──

如果意義改變了， 需求會不會因此改變，

If the meaning changes, does it change the need,

or is the need clear of the entire context?

或是說需求跟整體環境背景 一點關係都沒有？

HF: Wow! Well --

海倫：哇，這...

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Well, I've got three points here, right?

哇，三點對吧？

First of all, to your first one:

首先，回答你的第一個問題：

there's no question that we've changed, that we now want a person to love,

毫無疑問我們已經改變了， 我們現在想要去愛一個人，

and for thousands of years, we had to marry the right person

數千年來，我們都得跟對的人結婚，

要門當戶對。

from the right background and right kin connection.

And in fact, in my studies of 5,000 people every year,

事實上，在我每年五千人的研究中，

I ask them, "What are you looking for?"

我問他們：「你在找什麼樣的人？」

And every single year, over 97 percent say --

每一年，超過 97% 的人都說

EP: The list grows --

埃：清單變長了？

HF: Well, no.

海：喔，沒有。

基本上，就是超過 97% 的人

The basic thing is over 97 percent of people

want somebody that respects them,

都想要會尊重他們的人，

somebody they can trust and confide in,

值得信任、傾訴的人，

somebody who makes them laugh,

會逗他們笑的人，

somebody who makes enough time for them

特別為他們空出時間的人，

and somebody who they find physically attractive.

還有，外表具吸引力的人。

That never changes.

這些從未改變。

And there's certainly -- you know, there's two parts --

當然你知道，有兩部分...

EP: But you know how I call that?

埃：你知道我怎麼稱它嗎？

That's not what people used to say --

過去大家的回答，不是這樣的。

HF: That's exactly right.

海：沒錯。

埃：他們說想要一個能陪伴他們、

EP: They said they wanted somebody with whom they have companionship,

能提供經濟支持及喜歡小孩的人。

economic support, children.

We went from a production economy to a service economy.

我們從生產經濟變成服務經濟。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We did it in the larger culture, and we're doing it in marriage.

過去大範圍的文化是這樣， 現在婚姻也變這樣了。

海：沒錯，毫無疑問。

HF: Right, no question about it.

But it's interesting, the millennials actually want to be very good parents,

但是很有意思， 千禧世代很想當個好父母，

whereas the generation above them wants to have a very fine marriage

而他們的上一代想的 卻是如何有個好婚姻，

不是那麼著重在如何當個好父母。

but is not as focused on being a good parent.

You see all of these nuances.

你看到這些細微的不同處。

There's two basic parts of personality:

個性有兩個基本部分：

there's your culture -- everything you grew up to do and believe and say --

一是你的文化，你成長中所做的、 所相信的、所說的──

and there's your temperament.

還有就是你的氣質。

基本上，我今天講的都是你的氣質。

Basically, what I've been talking about is your temperament.

And that temperament is certainly going to change with changing times

那個氣質一定會隨著

時間及看法而改變。

and changing beliefs.

And in terms of the paradox of choice,

至於選擇的悖論，

毫無疑問，這的確是個難題。

there's no question about it that this is a pickle.

There were millions of years where you found that sweet boy

幾百萬年來一直都是 你看到一個好男孩

at the other side of the water hole,

在水塘的另一邊，

你就去了。

and you went for it.

EP: Yes, but you --

埃：是啊，但你...

HF: I do want to say one more thing.

海：我還想說一件事。

The bottom line is, in hunting and gathering societies,

基本就是，在狩獵採集的社會，

they tended to have two or three partners during the course of their lives.

他們一生中往往有2~3位伴侶。

They weren't square!

他們沒那麼死板！

And I'm not suggesting that we do,

我不是說我們也要這麼做，

but the bottom line is, we've always had alternatives.

但基本就是，我們總是有選擇的。

Mankind is always --

人類總是...

in fact, the brain is well-built to what we call "equilibrate,"

事實上， 大腦在平衡的基礎上，

去做嘗試與選擇：

to try and decide:

Do I come, do I stay? Do I go, do I stay?

我要來嗎？我要留嗎？ 我要去嗎？我要留嗎？

What are the opportunities here?

這裡有什麼機會？

How do I handle this there?

我要怎麼處理這個？

And so I think we're seeing another play-out of that now.

所以我想這部分也要漸漸消失了。

很好，謝謝兩位。

KS: Well, thank you both so much.

I think you're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!

我想你們今晚會有百萬名飯友了！

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you, thank you.

謝謝妳，謝謝！