Why we make bad decisions | Dan Gilbert

譯者: Yujian Li 審譯者: Jeannie Cheng

We all make decisions every day; we want to know

我們每天都作出決定；我們想知道如何做

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

正確的事情——從金融

to the gastronomic to the professional to the romantic.

到烹飪到職業到愛情。

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

當然，如果有人能夠真的能告訴我們

exactly the right thing at all possible times,

在所有可能的時刻如何做正確的事情，

that would be a tremendous gift.

那可是一份非凡的智慧。

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

事實上，早在1738年，荷蘭博學家Daniel Bernoulli

by a Dutch polymath named Daniel Bernoulli.

就為世人提供了這項智慧。

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

我今天想講的是這項智慧是什麽，

and I also want to explain to you why it is

以及，我想向各位解釋

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

爲什麽這項智慧根本就沒有影響我們的生活。

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

這就是Bernoulli提供的智慧。這是他的原文。

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

如果這看上去像希臘文，因為，它就是希臘文。

But the simple English translation -- much less precise,

把它簡單翻譯成英文——雖然不夠精確，

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

但它抓住了Bernoulli所表達的要點：

The expected value of any of our actions --

我們所有行為的預期值——

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

即是，我們所能期望得到的好處——

is the product of two simple things:

是以下兩個簡單事物的乘積：

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

這就是，該行為能使我們獲益的機率，

and the value of that gain to us.

和我們從中所獲得的益處的價值。

In a sense, what Bernoulli was saying is,

在某種意義上而言，Bernoulli所說的是，

if we can estimate and multiply these two things,

如果我們能夠評估這兩者並把它們相乘，

we will always know precisely how we should behave.

我們就會精確的知道自己應該怎麼做。

Now, this simple equation, even for those of you

那麼，這個簡單的公式，即使對那些

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

不喜歡公式的人而言，也是很平常簡單的。

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

舉個例子：如果我告訴你，讓我們來玩

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

一個拋硬幣的遊戲，我會拋一個硬幣，

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

如果是正面朝上，我會給你10元，

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

但你得花4元來得到這個與我玩的機會，

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

你們大多數人會說，好，我參加。因為你們知道

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

你們贏的機會是一半，如果贏的話會得到10元，

that multiplies to five, and that's more

兩者相乘得5，這比我收取的

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

費用要多。所以，你會回答，好。

This is what statisticians technically call a damn fine bet.

這就是統計師們技術上所稱的很棒的賭局。

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

那麼，當我們把這個原理應用到拋硬幣上時，是很簡單的，

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

但實際上，在應用到日常生活中卻並不那麼簡單。

People are horrible at estimating both of these things,

人們評估兩者的能力非常糟糕，

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

而這就是我今天想要談論的話題。

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

人們在為自己的行為作決策時，

what the right thing is to do, and those are

會犯兩種錯誤，

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

即錯誤地估計成功的機率，

and errors in estimating the value of their own success.

以及錯誤地估計成功的價值。

Now, let me talk about the first one first.

首先讓我談談第一個錯誤。

Calculating odds would seem to be something rather easy:

計算機率看起來是件很簡單的事情：

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

一個骰子有六面，一個硬幣有兩面，一副撲克牌有52張。

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

你們都知道摸到黑桃A或者

or of flipping a heads.

拋出硬幣正面的可能性。

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

但結果是，這個道理如果應用於日常生活的時候，

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

就不那麼容易了。這也是爲什麽美國人花了更多的錢——

I should say, lose more -- gambling

我應該說，輸了更多的錢——在賭博上。

than on all other forms of entertainment combined.

這些錢比所有其他娛樂形式費用的總和還要多。

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

原因就是，人們並不用這種方式來計算機率。

The way people figure odds

要談論人們計算機率的方式，

requires that we first talk a bit about pigs.

我們先得談談和豬有關的事宜。

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

我現在要問你們的問題是，

there are more dogs or pigs on leashes

在牛津的任何一天，

observed in any particular day in Oxford.

你認為被拴的狗多還是被拴的豬多。

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

當然，你們都知道答案是狗。

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

你知道這個答案是狗

you quickly reviewed in memory the times

是靠你快速地回憶

you've seen dogs and pigs on leashes.

看到狗和豬被拴的次數。

It was very easy to remember seeing dogs,

我們很容易記起見到被拴的狗，

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

但不那麼容易記起被拴的豬。而且你們每個人會假設

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

如果狗被拴的情景更快地出現在你的腦海中的話，

then dogs on leashes are more probable.

那麼狗被拴的可能性更大。

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

這個憑感覺的方法還不錯，但也有例外。

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

舉例說，這裡有個填詞遊戲。

Are there more four-letter English words

在四個字母的英文單詞裡，第三個字母是R的單詞

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

與第一個字母是R的單詞哪個比較多？

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

嗯，你們會很快搜索下記憶，作一個快速掃描，

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

對你來說記起這些單詞太容易了，Ring，Rang，Rung，

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

而記起Pare，Park就很難：它們在腦海中出現得更慢。

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

而實際上，在英文裡，第三字母是R的單詞，

with R in the third than the first place.

比第一字母是R的單詞要多得多。

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

你回憶起第三字母是R的單詞比較慢的原因，

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

不是因為它們不存在，不大可能出現或使用頻率少。

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

而是因為我們的大腦是用第一個字母來回憶單詞。

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

我們好像是用大腦在讀這個單詞的音，S——然後單詞就出來了。

It's like the dictionary;

很像詞典；

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

我們很難用第三個字母來查找單詞。

So, this is an example of how this idea that

所以，這個例子說明一個道理，

the quickness with which things come to mind

即我們大腦回憶事物的速度，

can give you a sense of their probability --

會影響你對該事物出現的可能性的感覺——

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

而這個道理可能會讓你出現誤差。這並不僅限於填詞遊戲。

For example, when Americans are asked to estimate the odds

譬如說，當讓美國人估計他們

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

奇奇怪怪的死因的機率時——

these are estimates of number of deaths per year

這些估計數據是以每年每兩億美國人

per 200 million U.S. citizens.

的死亡人數而計。

And these are just ordinary people like yourselves who are asked

他們只是一些是跟你我一樣的普通人。問他們

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

猜測一下會有多少人死於颶風，煙花，哮喘，溺水等等。

Compare these to the actual numbers.

讓我們跟實際數據比較一下。

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

你們可以看到一個非常有趣的現象，首先，

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

兩者被大幅高估，即颶風和煙花；

Two things are vastly underestimated:

兩者被大幅低估：

dying by drowning and dying by asthma. Why?

溺水和哮喘。爲什麽？

When was the last time that you picked up a newspaper

你們還記得上次拿起一張報紙，

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

上面的的大標題是“男孩死於哮喘”是什麽時候嗎？

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

這沒什麽稀奇因為太普通了。

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

對我們來說，非常容易記起

of news stories or newsreels where we've seen

我們曾看到報紙和電視上的新聞報導

tornadoes devastating cities, or some poor schmuck

諸如颶風摧毀城市，或是某個可憐的笨蛋

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

在國慶節被煙花炸掉雙手。

Drownings and asthma deaths don't get much coverage.

對因溺水和哮喘而死的報導並不多。

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

我們並不會很快記起這類事件，而結果就是，

we vastly underestimate them.

我們極度低估了它們。

Indeed, this is kind of like the Sesame Street game

的確，這就有點像芝麻街遊戲

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

"哪樣東西與眾不同？" 你說游泳池不同

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

就對了，因為游泳池是

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

這張上唯一非常危險的東西。

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

也就是說，你們死於游泳池的可能性

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

比這張圖片上其他三種加起來還要高。

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

彩票是一個很棒的例子，一個測試

of people's ability to compute probabilities.

人們計算可能性的能力的例子。

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

先對那些買彩票的朋友說聲抱歉，

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

但經濟學家們，至少在他們之間，把彩票稱為

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

愚蠢之稅，因為投資買彩票

by investing your money in a lottery ticket

而中獎的可能性

are approximately equivalent to flushing the money

跟把錢直接沖進馬桶差不多

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

而且，沖馬桶還

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

不需要你親自去彩票店跑一趟。

Why in the world would anybody ever play the lottery?

究竟世上爲什麽會有人想買彩票呢？

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

嗯，有許多答案，但其中肯定包括這個答案：

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

我們看到許多中大獎的人。對吧？當這對夫妻贏了大獎，

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

或Ed McMahon帶著一張巨大的支票來到你家門口時——

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

我可不知道你怎麼用那麼巨大的支票去換錢。

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

我們在電視上看到這些，在報紙上讀到這些。

When was the last time that you saw extensive interviews

你們什麽時候見過對每個輸錢的人

with everybody who lost?

所作出的大量採訪呢？

Indeed, if we required that television stations run

的確，如果我們要求電視台

a 30-second interview with each loser

每次採訪大獎得主的時候，

every time they interview a winner, the 100 million losers

必須播放對每個輸家一段30秒的採訪，

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

那麼上次開獎後你得全神貫注地花上9年半的時間

of your undivided attention just to watch them say,

來看那1億輸家採訪，你會看到他們說，

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

"我？我輸了。" "我？我輸了。"

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

那麼，如果你看了九年半的電視——

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

不睡不拉——你就會往復循環地看到輸輸輸，

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

然後最後的30秒"我贏了"，

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

這樣你去買彩票的可能性就很小了。

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

來，我可以證明給你：這兒有個小彩票。

There's 10 tickets in this lottery.

一共有10張彩票。

Nine of them have been sold to these individuals.

其中9張已經賣給其他不同的人了，

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

1元1張票，如果你贏了，

you get 20 bucks. Is this a good bet?

你得到20元。值得賭嗎？

Well, Bernoulli tells us it is.

嗯，Bernoulli告訴我們肯定的答案：

The expected value of this lottery is two dollars;

這個彩票的預期價值是2元，

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

你應該投資購買該彩票。

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

大多數人會說，"好，我會買。"

Now, a slightly different version of this lottery:

現在，稍微改變一下彩票規則：

imagine that the nine tickets are all owned

假設9張票全部

by one fat guy named Leroy.

給一個叫Leroy的胖子買走了。

Leroy has nine tickets; there's one left.

Leroy有9張票；那就只剩下1張。

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

你還會買嗎？大多數人不想買了。

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

你可以看到贏的機率並沒有改變，

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

但現在非常容易想像出誰會是贏家。

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

很容易看出Leroy會贏獎，對吧？

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

你不會對自己說，"我跟其他人得獎的機會一樣大。"

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

因為你跟Leroy得獎的機會不一樣大。

The fact that all those tickets are owned by one guy

所有其他彩票被一個人買走的事實

changes your decision to play,

改變了你是否要買的決定，

even though it does nothing whatsoever to the odds.

儘管你知道你贏的機率一點都沒變。

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

那麼，評估可能性的難度，雖然看起來很難，

compared to trying to estimate value:

但與評估價值相比較，簡直是小菜一碟：

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

評估價值就是試圖找出某樣東西的價值，我們對它的享受程度，

how much pleasure it will give us.

它會帶給我們多少快樂。

I want to talk now about errors in value.

我現在想談下價值的錯誤。

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

這個巨無霸漢堡包值多少錢？值25元嗎？

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

大多數人直覺它不值——

you wouldn't pay that for it.

你不會花那麼多錢買它。

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

而實際上，決定一個巨無霸漢堡是否值25元，

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

只需要你問一個問題而已，即：

What else can I do with 25 dollars?

我還能用25元做什麽？

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

如果你曾坐過那種去澳大利亞的長途航班，

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

而且得知他們不會提供任何食物，

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

但你前排有個人剛剛打開了

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

麥當勞的紙袋，那金黃色圓麵包的香味

is wafting over the seat, you think,

從座位上方飄了過來，這時你會想，

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

我在這16個小時用這25元什麽也不能做。

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

我甚至不能點燃它——他們把我的打火機收走了！

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

突然，25元買個巨無霸漢堡可能是筆好交易。

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

相反的情況，如果你去參觀一個發展中國家，

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

25元就可以讓你大快朵頤，而買巨無霸漢堡就太貴了。

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

爲什麽在我還沒告訴你們所處的情境時，

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

你們都確定對這個問題的答案是"不"呢？

Because most of you compared the price of this Big Mac

因為你們大多數人將這個巨無霸漢堡的價格

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

與你們過去常付的價格比較。而不是問，

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

"我還能用這錢幹什麼"，即將這項投資與

to other possible investments, you compared to the past.

其他可能的投資比較，你們是與過去的情境比較。

And this is a systematic error people make.

而這是人們犯的一個系統性錯誤。

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

你所知道的是，你在過去是花3元；如果花25元就太過分了。

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

這是一個錯誤，我可以證明給大家看，

the kinds of irrationalities to which it leads.

我會展示給大家看它可以導致什麼樣的非理性。

For example, this is, of course,

舉例來說，

one of the most delicious tricks in marketing,

一個最有效的營銷技巧是，

is to say something used to be higher,

告訴顧客商品的原價更高，

and suddenly it seems like a very good deal.

這樣的話，現價一下子就看起來很划算了。

When people are asked about these two different jobs:

當人們被問及兩份工作時：

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

第一份工作你的年薪先是6萬元，然後5萬元，然後4萬元，

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

每年都會減薪，

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

第二份工作是每年都會加薪，

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

人們更喜歡第二份工作，儘管事實上

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

他們都被告知會賺得更少。爲什麽會這樣？

Because they had the sense that declining wages are worse

因為他們感覺逐年遞減的工資比

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

遞增的工資要差，儘管總數算起來前者要比

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

後者多。這裡有另外一個例子。

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

這是一套價值二千元的夏威夷假日套票，現在促銷價是一千六百元

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

假設你想去夏威夷，你願意買這個套票嗎？

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

大多數人會同意購買。那麼把條件稍微改變一下：

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

2000元的夏威夷假日套票現在只售700元，

so you decide to mull it over for a week.

於是你考慮了一個星期。

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

等你來到售票代理的時，最好的價格過期了——

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

現在的價格是一千五百元。你還會買嗎？大多數人會說，不會。

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

爲什麽？因為它過去的價格是七百元，而我絕不會花一千五百元

for something that was 700 last week.

買上個星期只有七百元的東西。

This tendency to compare to the past

人們喜歡與過去的事物比較的傾向

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

導致人們錯過了更好的交易。換句話說，

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

一個划算的交易，會因為它之前更划算而導致現在顯得不那麼划算，

as an awful deal that was once a horrible deal.

同樣，一個糟糕的交易，會因為之前更糟糕而導致現在顯得不那麼糟糕。

Here's another example of how comparing to the past

這是另外一個跟過去比較是

can befuddle our decisions.

如何迷惑我們的決策的例子。

Imagine that you're going to the theater.

假設你要去劇院。

You're on your way to the theater.

你在去劇院的路上。

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

你錢包里放著你花了20元買的一張票。

You also have a 20-dollar bill.

你也有一張20元的鈔票。

When you arrive at the theater,

當你到達劇院時，

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

你發現不知怎樣電影票在路上丟了。

Would you spend your remaining money on replacing it?

你會花剩下的錢再買一張嗎？

Most people answer, no.

大多數人的答案是，不會。

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

那麼，讓我們把這個情境改變一點。

You're on your way to the theater,

你在去劇院的路上，

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

在你的錢包裡有兩張20元的鈔票。

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

當你到達劇院時你發現丟了一張。

Would you spend your remaining 20 dollars on a ticket?

你會花剩下的20元買電影票嗎？

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

嗯，當然了：我是去劇院看電影的。

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

在路上丟了20元跟這個有什麽關係？

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

萬一你還不太明白，

here's a schematic of what happened, OK?

我用圖表來表示剛才所發生的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Along the way, you lost something.

在路上，你丟了點東西。

In both cases, it was a piece of paper.

在兩種情況下，丟的都是一張紙。

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

只不過一張紙上有美國總統頭像在上面，另外一張沒有。

What the hell difference should it make?

那又有什麽區別呢？

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

區別其實在於當你丟了電影票的時候，你對自己說，

I'm not paying twice for the same thing.

我不會為同樣的事情付兩次錢。

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

你把這次看電影要花的費用——40元——

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

與以前的比較——20元——你會認為它是個差勁的交易。

Comparing with the past causes many of the problems

與過去價值比較這一現象，

that behavioral economists and psychologists identify

使行為經濟學家和心理學家發現了

in people's attempts to assign value.

人們在嘗試評估價值中所犯的許多錯誤。

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

但甚至當我們只是與可能的情況，而非過去作比較時，

we still make certain kinds of mistakes.

我們仍然會犯某些錯誤。

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

我會講其中一兩種錯誤給大家聽。

One of the things we know about comparison:

對於比較，我們都知道的是：

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

當我們拿一件東西跟另外一件比較時，它的價值就變了。

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

在1992年，這個傢伙，George Bush，對我們其中一些

kind of on the liberal side of the political spectrum,

政治上傾向於自由的人們來說，

didn't seem like such a great guy.

看上去並不怎麼樣。

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

現在呢，我們突然渴望他回來了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The comparison changes how we evaluate him.

比較改變了我們如何評價他。

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

其實，零售商們比任何人都早知道一個道理，

and they use this wisdom to help you --

而且他們使用這個道理來幫助你——

spare you the undue burden of money.

花掉你更多的錢。

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

如果你去一個賣酒的商店，

and you had to buy a bottle of wine,

你得買一瓶酒，

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

有三種價格分別是8元，27元，33元，你會選哪種？

Most people don't want the most expensive,

大多數人不想要最貴的，

they don't want the least expensive.

也不想要最便宜的。

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

於是，他們會選中間的價格。

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

如果你是個聰明的零售商，那麼，你把一瓶非常貴

that nobody will ever buy on the shelf,

而永遠不可能有人買的的酒放在貨架上，

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

因此突然間，相比較而言，33元的酒看起來就不那麼貴了。

So I'm telling you something you already knew:

其實我在告訴你們已經知道的道理，

namely, that comparison changes the value of things.

即，比較會改變事物的價值。

Here's why that's a problem:

爲什麽它是個問題呢：

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

問題是當你把33美元的酒帶回家時，

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

它在商店里跟哪瓶酒擺在一起已經不重要了。

The comparisons we make when we are appraising value,

我們在評估價值的時候會作比較，

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

我們試圖通過比較來評估我們將會多喜歡它們，

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

而這種比較跟我們在享用它們的時候所作的比較是不同的。

This problem of shifting comparisons can bedevil

這種轉移比較的問題會

our attempts to make rational decisions.

在我們嘗試作出理性選擇時困擾我們。

Let me just give you an example.

我再舉一個例子。

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

我要給你們看我自己實驗室的一項實驗，來看這個。

These are subjects coming to an experiment to be asked

這些參與實驗的對象要回答

the simplest of all questions:

一個最最簡單的問題：

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

一分鐘後你對吃馬鈴薯片的享受程度會是怎樣？

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

他們坐在屋子里，薯片放在他們前面。

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

其中一些實驗對象的屋子遠角

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

放了一盒Godiva的巧克力，其他人的屋子遠角是放了一罐Spam午餐肉。

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

實際上，這些放在屋子里的東西改變了

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

實驗對象認為他們將會享用薯片的程度。

Namely, those who are looking at Spam

也就是說，那些看到Spam午餐肉的人

think potato chips are going to be quite tasty;

認為薯片會很好吃；

those who are looking at Godiva chocolate

那些看著Godiva巧克力的人

think they won't be nearly so tasty.

認為薯片不怎麼樣。

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

當然，當他們真正吃的時候會怎樣呢？

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

嗯，你們根本不需要一個心理學家來告訴你們

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

當你滿嘴是油油的，鹹鹹的，脆脆的，美味的點心時，

what's sitting in the corner of the room

這屋子的角落里放著什麽東西

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

難道會對你的味覺體驗造成一丁點的影響嗎？

Nonetheless, their predictions are perverted by a comparison

不管怎樣，他們的預測被一個根本不會影響到

that then does not carry through and change their experience.

他們實際體驗的比較給破壞了。

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

就算你們從未到實驗室吃薯片，你們也都

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

有過這種經歷，那麼，問題來了：

You want to buy a car stereo.

你想買套汽車音響。

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

你家附近的經銷商買這款音響的價格是200元，

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

如果你開車穿過市區去買，你花100元就行了。

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

那麼你願意開車去一趟，以節省百分之50，省下100元嗎？

Most people say they would.

大多數人會願意。

They can't imagine buying it for twice the price

當開車跑一趟，可以省一半價錢時，

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

他們絕不願意花兩倍的價格來買。

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

現在，讓我們假設一下，你想買一輛帶音響的車而不是音響，

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

你家附近的經銷商賣三萬一千元。

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

如果你駕車穿過市區去買，你可以以三萬零九百元成交。

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

你會開車跑一趟去買嗎？這時，節省的100元只佔0.003。

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

大多數人會說，不，我難道會爲了省100元

to save 100 bucks on the purchase of a car?

而費那麼大勁穿過市區跑一趟嗎？

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

這種思維讓經濟學家們抓狂，的確是這樣。

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

因為你節省的這100元——聽好了——

doesn't know where it came from.

這100元它自己可不知道自己從哪兒來的。

It doesn't know what you saved it on.

它不知道你是從何處節省出來的。

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

你用它去買雜貨時，它不會說，

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

我是從汽車音響上省下來的，或，

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

我是從汽車上省下來的傻錢。它還是錢耶。

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

如果駕車穿過市區跑一趟值100元的話，那它就值100元，

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

不管你是從哪裡省出來的。但人們不這麼想。

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

這也是爲什麽他們不知道他們的共同基金經理

is taking 0.1 percent or 0.15 percent of their investment,

是從他們的投資中抽取百分之0.1還是0.15，

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

但他們卻會收集牙膏盒上的優惠券來省一元。

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

現在，你看出來了吧，這就是轉移比較造成的問題，

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

因為你所作的是，你在用這100元

to the purchase that you're making,

與你所購買之物比較，

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

但當你去花這100元的時候，你是不會作這個比較的。

You've all had this experience.

你們都有過這種經歷。

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

如果你是一個美國人，舉例來說，你可能去過法國。

And at some point you may have met a couple

你可能在某個時刻遇到一對

from your own hometown, and you thought,

來自家鄉的夫婦，並且你覺得，

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

"哇，他們真熱情。他們對我真好。

I mean, compared to all these people who hate me

我是說，我試著說法語時，那些法國佬不喜歡我，

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

我不說時他們更不喜歡我，跟這些法國佬比較，

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

那對夫婦真是太好了。" 於是你跟他們一起遊覽法國，

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

回家後你請他們來吃晚餐，

and what do you find?

你會發現什麽？

Compared to your regular friends,

與你的正常朋友比較，

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

他們顯得無聊而乏味，對吧？因為在這個新的環境下，

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

比較變得非常非常不同。實際上，你會發現

disliking them enough almost to qualify for French citizenship.

你差不多跟法國佬一樣不喜歡他們了。

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

嗯，你去購買音響時會遇到一模一樣的問題。

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

你去音響店，你看到兩種音響——

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

這些大大的，方方的，像石頭一樣的，還有這些小巧閃亮的音響，

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

然後你播放它們，你會想，嗯，我是聽出點不同來了：

the big ones sound a little better.

大個的效果要好一些。

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

於是你買了它們，帶回家，

and you entirely violate the décor of your house.

然後你完全打亂了房間的裝飾風格。

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

問題出在哪裡？當然是你在店裡所作的比較，

is a comparison you'll never make again.

是你永遠沒有機會再作的比較。

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

難道你會有機會在幾年后打開音響然後想，

"Sounds so much better than those little ones,"

"聽起來確實比那些小傢伙好哦，"

which you can't even remember hearing.

而你根本就不會記得當時曾聽過哪個了。

The problem of shifting comparisons is even more difficult

在選項跨越時間的情況下，

when these choices are arrayed over time.

轉移比較的問題會更困難。

People have a lot of trouble making decisions

人們在對發生在不同時刻的事情作決策時，

about things that will happen at different points in time.

會有許多困難。

And what psychologists and behavioral economists have discovered

心理學家和行為經濟學家所發現的是，

is that by and large people use two simple rules.

總的來說，人們使用兩種簡單的規則。

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

我先提一個簡單的問題，然後再一個簡單的問題，

and then a third, hard, problem.

然後第三個很難的問題。

Here's the first easy problem:

第一個簡單的問題是：

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

你可以馬上得到60元或50元。你喜歡哪個選擇？

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

這是我們所說的單題智商測試，好吧？

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

我希望我們所有人都喜歡更多的錢，原因是，

we believe more is better than less.

我們相信多比少好。

Here's the second problem:

第二個問題是：

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

你可以今天得到60元或一個月後得到60元。你喜歡哪個？

Again, an easy decision,

還是一個很簡單的決定，

because we all know that now is better than later.

因為我們都知道馬上得到比遲延要好。

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

而當這兩條規則衝突時，我們作決策就很難了。

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

舉例來說，當讓你選擇馬上得到50元或一個月後得到60元。

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

這代表了生活中的許多情況，即你將通過等待獲益，

by waiting, but you have to be patient.

但你得有耐心。

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

我們知道什麽？在這些情況下，人們會怎麼做？

Well, by and large people are enormously impatient.

嗯，總的來說，大多數人都非常缺乏耐心。

That is, they require interest rates in the hundred

也就是說，得給他們百分之幾百

or thousands of percents in order to delay gratification

或幾千的利息，才會讓他們願意推遲得到的滿足感，

and wait until next month for the extra 10 dollars.

並等到下個月來得到那額外的10元。

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

也許這看起來沒什麼了不起，可了不起的是，

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

我們可以很輕易的趕走這種急躁，只是通過很簡單的

when the delivery of these monetary units will happen.

改變發放錢的時間而已。

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

假設你在一年後可以得到50元——即12個月——

or 60 dollars in 13 months.

或13個月後得到60元。

What do we find now?

我們會得出什麽結論？

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

人們很願意得到：如果他們得等12個月，

they might as well wait 13.

他們也願意等13個月。

What makes this dynamic inconsistency happen?

是什麽導致這種動態不一致性呢？

Comparison. Troubling comparison. Let me show you.

比較。令人困惑的比較。我來展示一下。

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

這張圖展示了問題的答案，

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

如果我給你們時間來回答，你們的答案就是這樣，也就是說，

people find that the subjective value of 50 is higher

人們發現馬上得到50元的主觀價值要比

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

一個月後得到60元的主觀價值高

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

——30天的遲延——

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

但若將兩者都向後推遲一年的話，

off into the future a year.

其展示的模式卻相反。

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

那麼，究竟我們爲什麽會有這樣的結果呢？

These guys can tell us.

這兩個傢伙會告訴我們答案。

What you see here are two lads,

你們看到這兒有兩個小傢伙，

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

其中一個比另外一個要大：消防員和小提琴手。

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

他們會後退一直到消失在地平線，

and I want you to notice two things.

我想讓大家注意兩個事情。

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

任何距離消防員都不可能比小提琴手高。任何距離。

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

然而，他們兩者之間的差別似乎變得越來越小。

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

開始的時候在你的視線里他們相差一英寸，然後是四分之三英寸，

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

然後是半英寸，然後最終他們消失在地平線上。

Here are the results of what I just showed you.

這就是我剛才展示的結果。

This is the subjective height --

這是主觀高度——

the height you saw of these guys at various points.

你們所看到的在不同距離的兩人的高度。

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

我想讓大家注意兩件事是真實的。

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

第一，他們距離越遠，看起來就越小；

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

第二，消防員總是比小提琴手高大。

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

但是注意當我們讓其中一些消失時，會發生什麽？沒錯。

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

在一段很近的距離，小提琴手看上去比消防員高，

but at a far distance

但如果相距很遠

their normal, their true, relations are preserved.

他們正常的，真實的關係會得以保留。

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

如柏拉圖所說，空間之於尺寸，時間之於價值。

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

這些就是我所提問題——馬上得到60元或一個月後得到50元——

60 now or 50 in a month?

的結果。

And these are subjective values,

這些是主觀價值，

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

你可以看到，我們的兩條規則沒有改變。

People always think more is better than less:

人們總是認為多比少好：

60 is always better than 50,

60要比50好；

and they always think now is better than later:

並且他們總是認為馬上得到比遲延要好：

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

這邊的條形柱要比這邊的高。

Watch what happens when we drop some out.

當我們撤掉一些條形柱時，注意會出現什麽。

Suddenly we have the dynamic inconsistency that puzzled us.

突然間，那些困擾我們的動態不一致性出現了。

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

我們可以看到，人們有寧可馬上得到50元而

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

不願意等一個月的傾向，但如果決策在很遠的未來，結果就不同了。

Notice something interesting that this implies -- namely, that

注意這會導致什麽有趣的推論——即

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

當人們走近未來時，他們會改變想法。

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

也就是說，當第十二個月來臨時，你會說，

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

我在想什麽，爲了60元等一個月？

I'll take the 50 dollars now.

我還不如現在就拿那50元。

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

嗯，在結束之前，我想問的問題是：

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

如果我們這麼蠢不可及，我們是怎麼登月的？

Because I could go on for about two hours with evidence

因為我可以再花兩個小時來列舉證據

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

證明人們在評估機率與評估價值方面的無能。

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

問題的答案，我想，你們已經在其他一些演講中

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

聽過了，我敢說你們還會再聽到：

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

我們的大腦是從一個與我們

than the one in which we are living.

現在所居住的世界截然不同的世界進化而來的。

They were evolved for a world

在大腦進化過程中，

in which people lived in very small groups,

人類是以小群體居住的，

rarely met anybody who was terribly different from themselves,

很少遇見跟他們自己差異很大的人，

had rather short lives in which there were few choices

他們的壽命很短，選擇不多，

and the highest priority was to eat and mate today.

並且他們的最高優先選項是當下進食和交配。

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

Bernoulli的智慧，Bernoulli的小公式允許我們，告訴我們

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

我們應該如何在這個世界上思考，雖然自然界並沒有把我們設計成這樣思考。

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

這也解釋了我們爲什麽使用這公式的能力如此糟糕，但也解釋了

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

爲什麽它如此重要以至於我們現在變得如此之好，如此之快。

We are the only species on this planet

我們是這顆行星上唯一的

that has ever held its own fate in its hands.

把握自己命運的物種。

We have no significant predators,

我們沒有天敵，

we're the masters of our physical environment;

我們是物理環境的主人；

the things that normally cause species to become extinct

環境通常是導致物種滅絕的原因，

are no longer any threat to us.

但卻不再能夠威脅到我們。

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

只有一樣東西——唯一能夠破壞和毀滅我們的是

are our own decisions.

我們自己的決定。

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

如果一萬年後我們滅絕了，那將會是因為

we could not take advantage of the gift given to us

我們不能很好的利用這個

by a young Dutch fellow in 1738,

由1738年一個年輕的荷蘭人提供給我們的智慧，

because we underestimated the odds of our future pains

因為我們低估了我們未來的痛苦

and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.

而且高估了我們眼下的快樂。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Chris Anderson: That was remarkable.

Chris Anderson：非常精彩。

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

我們還有點時間讓大家向Dan Gilbert提問題。第一個和第二個。

Bill Lyell: Would you say that this mechanism

Bill Lyell：你認為在某種程度上，

is in part how terrorism actually works to frighten us,

這種機制是導致我們害怕恐怖主義的原因嗎？

and is there some way that we could counteract that?

我們是否有辦法來克服呢？

Dan Gilbert: I actually was consulting recently

Dan Gilbert：其實我最近在給

with the Department of Homeland Security, which generally believes

國土安全局作諮詢，他們普遍相信

that American security dollars should go to making borders safer.

美國的安全經費應該用在使邊境更安全的措施上。

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

我嘗試告訴他們，恐怖主義是一個

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

基於人們對一系列事件的心理反應的名詞，

and that if they were concerned about terrorism they might ask

而如果他們擔心恐怖主義，他們可能會問

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

是什麼原因產生恐懼以及我們如何阻止人們被嚇壞，

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

與其——不是與其，而是在此基礎上

stopping the atrocities that we're all concerned about.

再去阻止我們都擔心的暴行。

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

當然，至少美國媒體作出的報導——

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

原諒我這麼說，但是從數據上看，這些是機率很小的意外事件。

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

我們已經知道，譬如，在美國，

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

死於不坐飛機的人——

because they were scared -- and driving on highways,

因為他們害怕——於是駕車上高速公路，

than were killed in 9/11. OK?

要比911事件的遇難者要多。對吧？

If I told you that there was a plague

假設我告訴你，有一種疾病

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

將在明年導致1萬5千個美國人死亡，

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

你可能會感到驚慌，如果你不知道我說的其實是感冒。

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

這是些小概率事件，我們應該思考，

whether they should get the kind of play,

它們是否值得

the kind of coverage, that they do.

像現在這樣得到這麼多的報導。

Surely that causes people to overestimate the likelihood

理所當然地，這些報導會導致人們高估

that they'll be hurt in these various ways,

他們可能會在這些不同情況下受傷害的可能性，

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

同時也給了那些想恐嚇我們的人更大的權力。

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

CA：Dan，我希望你能多談下這個問題。那麼，你是說，

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

我們對恐怖事件的反應是，我是說，它是一種心理問題？

Talk more about it.

能否就此多談一下。

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

DG：它是被誇大了的。我的意思是，看。

If Australia disappears tomorrow,

如果澳大利亞明天消失了，

terror is probably the right response.

也許這才叫真正的恐怖。

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

那可是好多好多善良的人。但另一方面，

when a bus blows up and 30 people are killed,

當一輛公共汽車爆炸，30人遇難，

more people than that were killed

而同一個國家有更多的人

by not using their seatbelts in the same country.

因為沒有繫安全帶而死亡。

Is terror the right response?

我們應感到恐怖嗎？

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

CA：是什麽導致這個心理問題呢？是因為事件的發生

that it's so spectacular?

太過驚人嗎？

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

是因為它是一場國際襲擊嗎？由"外人"發起的？

What is it?

到底是什麽原因呢？

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

DG：是的，有幾個原因，你說對了其中幾個。

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

首先，想殺死我們的是人——

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

而不是一棵樹意外砸到我們身上。

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

其次，這是一些想要再次襲擊傷害我們的敵人。

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

人們是無緣無故被殺死的，而不是因為正當理由——

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

這麼說好像應該有正當理由似的，但有時人們的確是這麼認為的。

So there are a number of things that together

所以幾件事情合在一起

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

造成了其看起來是一件驚人的事件，但我們也不要輕描淡寫

the fact that newspapers sell when people see something in it

這樣一個事實，即報紙報導人們想要看的東西時

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

才會大賣。所以媒體在此事上也起了很大作用，

who want these things to be

它們想要這類事情

as spectacular as they possibly can.

看起來越轟動越好。

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

CA：我的意思是，我們應該怎樣做才能說服我們的文化減少這類做法？

DG: Well, go to Israel. You know,

DG：嗯，去以色列吧。你知道，

go to Israel. And a mall blows up,

去以色列。一個商場爆炸了，

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

然後每個人都不高興，而一個半小時之後——

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

至少我在時是那樣，當那個商場爆炸時，

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

我距離它150英尺——我回到酒店

and the wedding that was planned was still going on.

那個計劃好的婚禮照常舉行。

And as the Israeli mother said,

那個以色列母親說，

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

"我們絕不會停止婚禮讓他們獲勝。"

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

我是說，這個社會已經學會了如何應付——

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

還有其他國家也是這樣——學會了如何應付

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

某種程度的恐怖主義，他們所受的影響，

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

是否可以說，要遠遠少於我們那些沒有經歷過那麼多襲擊的人呢？

CA: But is there a rational fear that actually,

CA：但是是否存在一種理性的恐懼呢，

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

之所以我們對此恐懼，是因為我們認為

the Big One is to come?

會有特大襲擊來臨嗎？

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

DG：是的，當然。那麼，如果我們知道這是史上

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

最嚴重的襲擊，如果有更多的30人的公共汽車被炸——

we would probably not be nearly so frightened.

我們可能就不會那麼恐懼了。

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

我不想這麼說——拜託，我將被某處引用說

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

"恐怖主義沒什麼，我們不必太擔心。"

That's not my point at all.

我根本不是這個意思。

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

我想說的是，當然，理性地說，

our distress about things that happen, about threats,

我們對事情的擔心程度，對威脅的擔心，

should be roughly proportional to the size of those threats

應該大體上同這些威脅以及可能來臨的威脅大小

and threats to come.

成正比。

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

我想就恐怖主義而言，它並不成正比。

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

而我們今天從許多演講者中所聽到的——

how many people do you know got up and said,

多少人會早上起來說，

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

貧窮！我無法相信貧窮對我們造成的影響。

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

人們早上起來；他們不在乎貧窮。

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

貧窮不會佔據頭條；它不會上新聞，它不引人注目。

There are no guns going off.

它沒有放槍。

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

我的意思是，如果你必須解決其中一個問題，Chris，

which would you solve? Terrorism or poverty?

你會解決哪個，恐怖主義還是貧窮？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

That's a tough one.

很困難吧。

CA: There's no question.

CA：毫無疑問。

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

貧窮，按次序來講它是優先的，遠遠優先於恐怖主義，

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

除非有人能證明，你知道，

terrorists with a nuke are really likely to come.

恐怖分子會真的用核彈來襲擊。

The latest I've read, seen, thought

我最近讀到的，看到的，想到的是

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

他們想要做到這點是極其困難的。

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

如果這是錯的，我們就都看起來很愚蠢，

but with poverty it's a bit --

但貧窮有點——

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

DG：即便那是真的，還是有更多的人死於貧窮。

CA: We've evolved to get all excited

CA：我們的進化讓我們對於

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

這類戲劇性的襲擊很興奮。這是因為在過去，

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

在古代，我們只是不理解像疾病這樣的事

and systems that cause poverty and so forth,

以及造成貧窮的系統等等，

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

所以對我們作為一個物種而言，沒有道理將精力

into worrying about those things?

放在這些事情上？

People died; so be it.

人們死了；那就死了唄。

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

但如果你遭到襲擊，那麼你其實是可以做些什麽來應付襲擊的，

And so we evolved these responses.

於是我們就進化成有這些反應。

Is that what happened?

是這種情況嗎？

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

DG：嗯，你知道，動不動跳到進化理論解釋每件事，

about leaping to evolutionary explanations for everything

對於這種做法最持懷疑態度的，

are the evolutionary psychologists themselves.

恰恰是進化心理學家他們自己。

My guess is that there's nothing quite that specific

我估計在我們的進化史中，並沒有那麼

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

具體的東西。相反，如果你要找

an evolutionary explanation, you might say

進化理論解釋的話，你可以說

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

大多數有機體是恐新的——也就是說，它們對於

of stuff that's new and different.

新的和不同的事物是有點害怕的。

And there's a good reason to be,

一個很好的理由是，

because old stuff didn't eat you. Right?

因為舊東西不會吃了你。對吧？

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

一隻你從未見過的動物，比你早已見過的任何動物

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

都有可能成為你的敵人。

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

所以，你知道，當一個學校校車被炸掉時，而我們從未見過這種情形，

our general tendency is to orient towards

我們的普遍傾向是，

that which is new and novel is activated.

對新的奇怪的事物的反應傾向被激活了。

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

我不認為它是一個如你所暗示的

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

那麼具體的機制，但也許是一個更基礎的潛在的機制在起作用。

Jay Walker: You know, economists love to talk about

Jay Walker：你知道，經濟學家喜歡談論

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

人們買彩票是多麼愚蠢。但我懷疑

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

你所犯的錯誤與你所指責那些人犯的錯誤完全一樣，

which is the error of value.

即對價值的錯估。

I know, because I've interviewed

我之所以知道，是因為這些年來我採訪了

about 1,000 lottery buyers over the years.

大約1000名彩票買家。

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

結果是，購買彩票的價值不在於贏大獎。

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

而這就是你所認為的。對吧？

The average lottery buyer buys about 150 tickets a year,

一個普通的彩票買家大約每年買150張彩票，

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

所以買家完全知道他或她會輸錢，

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

但她仍然會每年買150張。爲什麽會這樣？

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

並不是因為她或他是愚蠢的。

It's because the anticipation of possibly winning

而是因為對可能贏大獎的期待

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

會使大腦釋放抑制血清胺素，並使人感覺舒服

until the drawing indicates you've lost.

一直持續到開獎時知道你沒贏為止。

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

或者，用另外的話來說，買彩票的投入的錢，

you can have a much better feeling than flushing the money

可以讓你比把錢沖進馬桶的感覺好得多，

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

而把錢沖馬桶可不會讓你有什麽好感覺。

Now, economists tend to --

現在，經濟學家傾向於——

(Applause)

（掌聲）

-- economists tend to view the world

——經濟學家傾向於透過

through their own lenses, which is:

他們自己的鏡片看世界，即：

this is just a bunch of stupid people.

這不過是一幫笨蛋人們。

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

而結果是，許多人把經濟學家們當成笨蛋看。

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

所以從根本上而言，我們能夠登月的原因是，

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

我們沒有聽經濟學家的話。謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

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

DG：嗯，不，這個觀點很好。對於期望的喜悅

whether the joy of anticipation is exactly equaled

是否完全等同於開獎後的失望，

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

我們尚未得知。因為不要忘記，

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

沒有買彩票的人並不會在次日感覺糟糕，

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

雖然他們並不會在等待抽獎過程中感覺很好。

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

我不同意人們知道他們不會贏大獎。

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

我認為他們覺得不太可能，但還是有希望發生，

which is why they prefer that to the flushing.

這也是爲什麽他們更願意買彩票而不是把錢沖馬桶。

But certainly I see your point: that there can be

但是當然我明白你的意思：也就是買彩票

some utility to buying a lottery ticket other than winning.

除了贏獎之外還是有其他用處的。

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

那麼，雖然我認為有許多不聽經濟學家的好理由。

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

但這並非其中一個理由，對我而言如此，但還有許多其他人可能不同意。

CA: Last question.

CA：最後一個問題。

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

Aubrey de Grey：我的名字是Aubrey de Grey，來自劍橋大學。

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

我的工作對象比任何其他東西殺死的人都多——

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

我研究衰老——我想致力於在此領域有所建樹，

as we'll all hear tomorrow.

我明天會進行演講。

I very much resonate with what you're saying,

你所說的很能引起我的共鳴，

because it seems to me that the problem

因為對我而言，阻礙人們

with getting people interested in doing anything about aging

致力於在衰老領域進行研究的問題是，

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

當衰老令你死亡的時候，它看起來像癌症

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

或心臟病或其他什麽。你有什麽好建議嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

DG: For you or for them?

DG：對你的建議還是對他們的？

AdG: In persuading them.

AdG：用來說服他們。

DG: Ah, for you in persuading them.

DG：啊，幫助你說服他們。

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

嗯，讓人們有遠見是極其困難的。

But one thing that psychologists have tried that seems to work

但心理學家們所嘗試的一種看起來起作用的方法是，

is to get people to imagine the future more vividly.

讓人們更生動地想像未來。

One of the problems with making decisions about the far future

對更遠的未來及較近的未來作決策時所遇到的一個問題是，

and the near future is that we imagine the near future

我們對於較近的未來的想像

much more vividly than the far future.

比較遠的未來更生動。

To the extent that you can equalize the amount of detail

到達這樣一種程度，你在對於較近或較遠未來的想像中，

that people put into the mental representations

在你的腦中想像出相同數量的細節，

of near and far future, people begin to make decisions

這樣人們對於這兩種情況

about the two in the same way.

就可以用相同的方式來作決策。

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

所以，你願意在65歲時多拿10萬元嗎，

is a question that's very different than,

這個問題與下面的截然不同，

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

想像你65歲時會是什麽樣子：你會活著嗎，

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

你的樣子如何，你的頭髮還剩多少，

who will you be living with.

你會跟誰一起住。

Once we have all the details of that imaginary scenario,

一旦我們有了所要想像情境的所有細節，

suddenly we feel like it might be important to save

突然我們就會感覺也許儲蓄是很重要的，

so that that guy has a little retirement money.

那樣的話那個傢伙就會有一些退休金。

But these are tricks around the margins.

但這些技巧有點隔靴搔癢。

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

我認為普遍而言，我們在同一個非常根本的人類傾向作鬥爭，

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

即，"我此刻在此，

and so now is more important than later."

所以此刻比未來要重要。"

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

CA：Dan，謝謝你。各位聽眾，

that was a fantastic session. Thank you.

這是一場精彩的演講。謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）