The art of choosing | Sheena Iyengar | TED

譯者: Lin Su-Wei(林書暐) 審譯者: ChiChang Liu

Today, I'm going to take you

今天，我要帶著各位

around the world in 18 minutes.

在這18分鐘裡環遊世界。

My base of operations is in the U.S.,

我研究的基準是在美國。

but let's start at the other end of the map,

不過先讓我們從地圖的另一端，

in Kyoto, Japan,

日本京都開始。

where I was living with a Japanese family

當時我住在京都某個日本家庭裡，

while I was doing part of my dissertational research

為了完成我的學位論文，

15 years ago.

這是15年前的事了。

I knew even then that I would encounter

當時我早有心理準備，

cultural differences and misunderstandings,

覺得我一定會遇到文化的差異與誤解，

but they popped up when I least expected it.

但沒想到我遇到的情況完全超乎我的想像。

On my first day,

在我剛到的第一天，

I went to a restaurant,

去了一家餐廳，

and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar.

然後我點了一杯綠茶加糖。

After a pause, the waiter said,

過一陣子，服務生過來跟我說

"One does not put sugar in green tea."

"沒有人會在綠茶裡放糖的。"

"I know," I said. "I'm aware of this custom.

"我知道"我回答："我知道日本人不加糖"

But I really like my tea sweet."

"但我真的想要一杯甜甜的茶"。

In response, he gave me an even more courteous version

他表現了一個更客氣的態度

of the same explanation.

並給了同一套說詞：

"One does not put sugar

"真的沒有人會放糖

in green tea."

在綠茶裡面"

"I understand," I said,

"我也真的知道"我回答：

"that the Japanese do not put sugar in their green tea,

"日本人不會在綠茶裡面放糖"

but I'd like to put some sugar

"但是我真的好想"

in my green tea."

"在綠茶裡面放糖"

(Laughter)

(笑)

Surprised by my insistence,

對於我的堅持服務生非常驚訝，

the waiter took up the issue with the manager.

於是他把這個情形告訴了店經理。

Pretty soon,

過沒多久，

a lengthy discussion ensued,

他們開始進行一段長時間的討論，

and finally the manager came over to me and said,

最後店經理走過來跟我說：

"I am very sorry. We do not have sugar."

"真的非常抱歉，我們店內沒有糖"

(Laughter)

(笑)

Well, since I couldn't have my tea the way I wanted it,

恩，既然我沒辦法喝到我想要的茶，

I ordered a cup of coffee,

我另外點了杯咖啡，

which the waiter brought over promptly.

這次服務生很快的端上來了。

Resting on the saucer

在咖啡的茶托上，

were two packets of sugar.

穩穩躺著2包糖。

My failure to procure myself

我沒辦法為自己點到一杯

a cup of sweet, green tea

加糖綠茶

was not due to a simple misunderstanding.

並不只是因為誤解而已。

This was due to a fundamental difference

這是因為在"選擇"的概念上，

in our ideas about choice.

我們有著最根本性的差異。

From my American perspective,

從我美國人的觀點來看，

when a paying customer makes a reasonable request

當一位付費的顧客根據她的偏好

based on her preferences,

提出合理的要求，

she has every right to have that request met.

她就有權利讓自己的要求得到滿足。

The American way, to quote Burger King,

這種美式作風，可以引用漢堡王的標語來表示

is to "have it your way,"

"吃出你自己的方式"，

because, as Starbucks says,

因為，星巴克說過

"happiness is in your choices."

"快樂是自己選的"。

(Laughter)

(笑)

But from the Japanese perspective,

但是從日本人的觀點來看，

it's their duty to protect those who don't know any better --

他們的職責，就是要保護那些不知道什麼是最棒的人。

(Laughter)

(笑)

in this case, the ignorant gaijin --

剛剛的案例中，這個無知的外國人---

from making the wrong choice.

就做了一個錯誤的選擇。

Let's face it: the way I wanted my tea

老實說，按照日本文化標準，

was inappropriate according to cultural standards,

我喝茶的方式是不恰當的，

and they were doing their best to help me save face.

而他們盡力想要幫助我不要丟臉。

Americans tend to believe

但美國人傾向認為

that they've reached some sort of pinnacle

自己所做的都是最棒的，

in the way they practice choice.

並致力於去實踐。

They think that choice, as seen through the American lens

美國人認為透過美國看待事物的觀點，

best fulfills an innate and universal

讓人類所選出的事物，

desire for choice in all humans.

最能滿足先天和普遍的需求。

Unfortunately,

不過很不幸的，

these beliefs are based on assumptions

這些想法是建立在某個假設上，

that don't always hold true

這種假設在其他的國家、其他的文化

in many countries, in many cultures.

是不成立的。

At times they don't even hold true

有時候在美國

at America's own borders.

也不一定成立。

I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions

我想要來談談這些假設，

and the problems associated with them.

還有它們所伴隨來的問題。

As I do so, I hope you'll start thinking

在我說明之時，我希望各位可以開始去思考，

about some of your own assumptions

那些在你腦中的那些假設，

and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.

還有這些假設是如何塑造你的各項經歷。

First assumption:

第一種假設情形：

if a choice affects you,

若有一項選擇與自己息息相關，

then you should be the one to make it.

那這項選擇應該要自己來做。

This is the only way to ensure

這是唯一能讓

that your preferences and interests

你的偏好和興趣

will be most fully accounted for.

得到最大的滿足。

It is essential for success.

這是成功的關鍵。

In America, the primary locus of choice

在美國，做選擇的基準點，

is the individual.

就是以個人為出發點。

People must choose for themselves, sometimes sticking to their guns,

人們必須為自己做選擇，並堅持自己的原則，

regardless of what other people want or recommend.

不管外界的任何聲浪。

It's called "being true to yourself."

這稱為"作真實的自己"。

But do all individuals benefit

但是，是否要完全從自身利益為出發點

from taking such an approach to choice?

來做選擇呢?

Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies

馬克-里柏與我做了一系列的研究，

in which we sought the answer to this very question.

目的就是去探討這問題的答案。

In one study,

其中一項研究，

which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco,

我們在舊金山的日本城執行，

we brought seven- to nine-year-old Anglo- and Asian-American children

我們將7到9歲的英裔美國籍，和亞裔美國籍的兒童

into the laboratory,

帶到實驗室裡，

and we divided them up into three groups.

然後將他們各別分成3組。

The first group came in,

第一組先進到實驗室裡，

and they were greeted by Miss Smith,

實驗室的史密斯小姐接待他們，

who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles.

並出了6大主題的字謎。

The kids got to choose which pile of anagrams they would like to do,

這些孩子能自由選擇想做的題目。

and they even got to choose which marker

同時他們能自由選擇

they would write their answers with.

要用哪一種馬克筆作答。

When the second group of children came in,

第二組進到實驗室，

they were brought to the same room, shown the same anagrams,

他們被帶進同樣的房間裡，出同樣的題目，

but this time Miss Smith told them

但此時史密斯小姐告訴他們，

which anagrams to do

你想做哪一題

and which markers to write their answers with.

那就得用指定的馬克筆。

Now when the third group came in,

接著第三組進來了，

they were told that their anagrams and their markers

他們被告知該做的字謎、作答用的馬克筆顏色，

had been chosen by their mothers.

他們的媽咪都決定好了。

(Laughter)

（笑）

In reality,

事實上，

the kids who were told what to do,

被告知該如何做的孩子，

whether by Miss Smith or their mothers,

不論是史密斯小姐或是媽咪告知的，

were actually given the very same activity,

他們被告知的內容，

which their counterparts in the first group

都是能自由選擇的第一組

had freely chosen.

所做的選擇結果。

With this procedure, we were able to ensure

在這流程下，我們也確定說

that the kids across the three groups

三個組中的孩子

all did the same activity,

若都有做出同樣的行為，

making it easier for us to compare performance.

我們也能容易的比較出績效。

Such small differences in the way we administered the activity

我們的管理行為稍有不同

yielded striking differences

就能引起

in how well they performed.

行為的大不同。

Anglo-Americans,

英裔美國籍的孩子，

they did two and a half times more anagrams

能自由選擇的人

when they got to choose them,

相較於

as compared to when it was

被史密斯小姐和媽咪指定的人，

chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers.

自由選擇的多做了2.5倍的字謎。

It didn't matter who did the choosing,

不論是誰下決定，

if the task was dictated by another,

如果任務已經被別人所控制指引，

their performance suffered.

他們的績效就會受損。

In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed

事實上，有些孩子被告知自己得照媽咪的意思做，

when they were told that their mothers had been consulted.

明顯的會覺得丟臉。

(Laughter)

（笑）

One girl named Mary said,

一位叫瑪麗的孩子說：

"You asked my mother?"

"你真的問了我媽咪？"

(Laughter)

（笑）

In contrast,

相較之下，

Asian-American children

亞裔美國藉的孩子，

performed best when they believed

在被告知他們媽咪已經說該怎麼做的時候，

their mothers had made the choice,

績效是最好的，

second best when they chose for themselves,

第2佳的是他們為自己選的，

and least well when it had been chosen by Miss Smith.

最後一名是史密斯小姐告訴他們的。

A girl named Natsumi

一位叫夏實的小女孩

even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room

在史密斯小姐要離開房間時

and tugged on her skirt and asked,

走近她並拉住她的裙子問說：

"Could you please tell my mommy

"你能不能跟我媽咪講說

I did it just like she said?"

我有照她的話乖乖做了?"

The first-generation children were strongly influenced

這些第一代的孩子（first-generation，指父母都為移民的孩子）

by their immigrant parents'

非常容易被移民父母

approach to choice.

所影響。

For them, choice was not just a way

對這些孩子而言，

of defining and asserting

選擇並非只是

their individuality,

展現自我的途徑，

but a way to create community and harmony

而是建立社群與使人相處融洽的過程，

by deferring to the choices

並根據他們所信任和尊敬的人所做的決定

of people whom they trusted and respected.

而有所差異。

If they had a concept of being true to one's self,

一旦他們心裡有這種觀念，

then that self, most likely,

那他們在"自我"的本質上，

[was] composed, not of an individual,

大部分就不是以個人為出發點，

but of a collective.

而是以合作為出發點。

Success was just as much about pleasing key figures

要獲得成就得滿足一些關鍵條件，

as it was about satisfying

像是滿足

one's own preferences.

某些人的偏好。

Or, you could say that

或者，你可以這樣認為，

the individual's preferences were shaped

這些個體心裡偏好的形成，

by the preferences of specific others.

是仰賴一些特定個體的偏好。

The assumption then that we do best

我們做了一個最好的假設，就是

when the individual self chooses

當個體在為自己做選擇時，

only holds

只取決

when that self

自己是不是

is clearly divided from others.

會和其他人清楚的區分開來。

When, in contrast,

相對的，

two or more individuals

當有2個或更多的個體，

see their choices and their outcomes

發現他們的選擇和成果

as intimately connected,

彼此密切相關，

then they may amplify one another's success

透過將個人選擇

by turning choosing

轉化成為集體行動的情形下，

into a collective act.

他們會放大彼此的成就。

To insist that they choose independently

要他們堅持自己的自主選擇，

might actually compromise

就會造成

both their performance

他們在自己的績效和關係上

and their relationships.

做一個妥協。

Yet that is exactly what

這恰恰就是

the American paradigm demands.

美國人最需要的典範行為。

It leaves little room for interdependence

這留給所謂獨立的觀念一些轉圜的空間

or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility.

或是說，他們認知到個人是不可靠的。

It requires that everyone treat choice

這讓每個人在對"選擇"這件事情上

as a private and self-defining act.

成為一種私人的和自我界定的行為。

People that have grown up in such a paradigm

人們會依據某個典範成長，

might find it motivating,

並受到其典範的刺激。

but it is a mistake to assume

第一項假設的錯誤點在於

that everyone thrives under the pressure

假設每個人的成功茁壯

of choosing alone.

都是來自獨自下決定的壓力。

The second assumption which informs the American view of choice

而美國人對選擇的觀點

goes something like this.

的第二項假設，就是

The more choices you have,

你擁有的選擇越多，

the more likely you are

就越有可能

to make the best choice.

做出正確的選擇。

So bring it on, Walmart, with 100,000 different products,

所以沃爾瑪超市裡面有10萬種不同的商品，

and Amazon, with 27 million books

亞馬遜電子書城有2700萬本書，

and Match.com with -- what is it? --

真愛天空交友網站有什麼？

15 million date possibilities now.

現在可能有1500萬筆的交友資料。

You will surely find the perfect match.

你一定可以在上面找到真愛。

Let's test this assumption

讓我們在東歐

by heading over to Eastern Europe.

針對這個假設對點實驗。

Here, I interviewed people

在東歐，我與一些人面談，

who were residents of formerly communist countries,

這些人過去是共產國家的居民，

who had all faced the challenge

曾經面對

of transitioning to a more

民主和資本主義社會

democratic and capitalistic society.

所帶來的過渡期。

One of the most interesting revelations

其中最有趣的啟示不是來自

came not from an answer to a question,

我們面談中的問與答，

but from a simple gesture of hospitality.

而是來自一個款待客人的簡單行為。

When the participants arrived for their interview,

當參與者來到面談地點後，

I offered them a set of drinks:

我會遞上一杯飲料，

Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite --

可樂，無糖可樂，雪碧．．等等

seven, to be exact.

為了周到我準備了7種飲料。

During the very first session,

實驗的第一階段，

which was run in Russia,

是在俄羅斯進行，

one of the participants made a comment

其中一個參與者所講的一句話，

that really caught me off guard.

真的讓我大吃一驚。

"Oh, but it doesn't matter.

他說：”喔，沒差啦，

It's all just soda. That's just one choice."

這些都是蘇打水，對我來說只有一種選擇”。

(Murmuring)

（細語）

I was so struck by this comment that from then on,

我對這句話非常震驚，

I started to offer all the participants

然後我開始提供所有的參與者

those seven sodas,

這7種飲料。

and I asked them, "How many choices are these?"

然後我都會問：”請問這裡有幾種選擇？”

Again and again,

這樣問了一次又一次，

they perceived these seven different sodas,

他們都認為這7種不同的氣泡飲料，

not as seven choices, but as one choice:

對他們而言不是7種選擇，是1種：

soda or no soda.

蘇打飲料，或非蘇打飲料。

When I put out juice and water

如果我在這7種飲料中，

in addition to these seven sodas,

額外再加上果汁和水，

now they perceived it as only three choices --

那他們就會認為現在有3種選擇了--

juice, water and soda.

果汁、水、蘇打水。

Compare this to the die-hard devotion of many Americans,

讓頑固死硬的美國人來分辨，

not just to a particular flavor of soda,

這些飲料可不僅僅只是口味各異的蘇打水，

but to a particular brand.

品牌也完全不同。

You know, research shows repeatedly

反覆研究的結果顯示，

that we can't actually tell the difference

對於可口可樂和百事可樂之間，

between Coke and Pepsi.

事實上我們也沒辦法分辨它們的差異。

Of course, you and I know

當然，對你我而言，

that Coke is the better choice.

可口可樂是第一選擇。

(Laughter)

（笑）

For modern Americans who are exposed

現代的美國人擁有的選項，

to more options and more ads associated with options

還有廣告所帶來的選項，

than anyone else in the world,

比世界上其他任何角落都要多，

choice is just as much about who they are

選擇是為了表達出個性，

as it is about what the product is.

廣告是為了分辨產品的不同。

Combine this with the assumption that more choices are always better,

將這點和第二項假設做合併，也就是越多的選擇是比較好的，

and you have a group of people for whom every little difference matters

所以你能找到一群人，這些人能針對事物之間的細微差距，

and so every choice matters.

劃分出許多不同的選擇。

But for Eastern Europeans,

但是對東歐人而言，

the sudden availability of all these

意外的得到這些

consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge.

像洪水般氾濫的市場消費品。

They were flooded with choice

在他們還不會游泳之前，

before they could protest that they didn't know how to swim.

就被大量的選擇所淹沒了。

When asked, "What words and images

當詢問他們："你對選擇

do you associate with choice?"

有什麼看法？"

Grzegorz from Warsaw said,

來自華沙的格雷戈爾說：

"Ah, for me it is fear.

”哇，對我來說這讓人害怕，

There are some dilemmas you see.

我不知道該怎麼選，

I am used to no choice."

我習慣了沒有選擇的日子。"

Bohdan from Kiev said,

來自基輔的布丹，

in response to how he felt about

他針對新的消費性市場

the new consumer marketplace,

作出回應：

"It is too much.

"東西實在太多了，

We do not need everything that is there."

在這裡我們不需要這麼多東西。"

A sociologist from

一位來自

the Warsaw Survey Agency explained,

華沙研究機構的社會學家解釋：

"The older generation jumped from nothing

"這裡上一世代的人

to choice all around them.

是從無法選擇的世界跳出來的。

They were never given a chance to learn

他們一直沒有

how to react."

學習如何去對外界做反應。"

And Tomasz, a young Polish man said,

一位年輕的波蘭年輕人，湯瑪士說：

"I don't need twenty kinds of chewing gum.

"我不需要20種的口香糖。

I don't mean to say that I want no choice,

我並不是說我不需要選擇，

but many of these choices are quite artificial."

但這些選擇中，有太多是刻意製造出來的。"

In reality, many choices are between things

事實上，有許多事物的選擇之間，

that are not that much different.

並沒有太大不同。

The value of choice

選擇的價值，

depends on our ability

是建立在

to perceive differences

我們能否在不同選項之間

between the options.

分辨出差異的能力上。

Americans train their whole lives

美國人訓練自己的生活

to play "spot the difference."

像是在玩”大家來找碴”的遊戲。

They practice this from such an early age

美國人從小就開始練習做"選擇"，

that they've come to believe that everyone

因此讓他們相信

must be born with this ability.

每個人出生後就擁有此能力。

In fact, though all humans share

事實上，雖然所有的人類

a basic need and desire for choice,

在"選擇"上都有基本的需要和欲求，

we don't all see choice in the same places

但是我們看待選擇的角度是不同的，

or to the same extent.

程度也是不同的。

When someone can't see how one choice

當有人沒辦法分辨出

is unlike another,

一個選擇和另一個選擇有何不同，

or when there are too many choices to compare and contrast,

或是無法從許多的選擇中做出比較，

the process of choosing can be

那麼做選擇的過程會是

confusing and frustrating.

令人困惑而且感到挫折的。

Instead of making better choices,

若沒辦法做出最佳選擇，

we become overwhelmed by choice,

我們就會被選擇這件事情所壓垮，

sometimes even afraid of it.

甚至會害怕做選擇。

Choice no longer offers opportunities,

選擇不再是提供更多機會的管道，

but imposes constraints.

反而是增加限制。

It's not a marker of liberation,

馬克筆沒辦法自由地使用，

but of suffocation

反而被一些無意義的小事

by meaningless minutiae.

所限制。

In other words,

換句話說，

choice can develop into the very opposite

如果把做選擇這件事情

of everything it represents

強塞那些沒準備自己做選擇的人，

in America

那美國人對選擇的詮釋，

when it is thrust upon those

對這些人而言

who are insufficiently prepared for it.

就會完全相反。

But it is not only other people

還有那些

in other places

住在其他地方

that are feeling the pressure

對於面對越來越多的選擇

of ever-increasing choice.

就會感受到壓力的人。

Americans themselves are discovering

美國人自己發現

that unlimited choice

擁有無限的選擇

seems more attractive in theory

理論上的吸引力會比

than in practice.

實際上高。

We all have physical, mental

我們在生理、心理、

and emotional (Laughter) limitations

和情緒都有所侷限，

that make it impossible for us

這讓我們

to process every single choice we encounter,

有能力去處理所遇到的每一個選擇，

even in the grocery store,

在雜貨店裡可以，

let alone over the course of our entire lives.

更不用說是整個人生了。

A number of my studies have shown

我的研究結果有一個數字，

that when you give people 10 or more options

當給予人們10個以上的選項時，

when they're making a choice, they make poorer decisions,

他們會做出最差的選擇，

whether it be health care, investment,

不論選擇的主題是衛生保健，投資，

other critical areas.

或是其他重大的領域。

Yet still, many of us believe

但我們之中仍舊有許多人相信

that we should make all our own choices

我們必須靠自己做選擇

and seek out even more of them.

並尋找更多可能的選項。

This brings me to the third,

這帶給我想到第三個假設

and perhaps most problematic, assumption:

而這也許是問題最大的假設：

"You must never

”永遠不要對

say no to choice."

選擇說不"。

To examine this, let's go back to the U.S.

為了去證實這假設是否存在，讓我們先回到美國，

and then hop across the pond to France.

然後再跨越大西洋到法國看看。

Right outside Chicago,

靠右側的芝加哥，

a young couple, Susan and Daniel Mitchell,

有一對年輕的夫妻，蘇珊和丹尼爾-米切爾，

were about to have their first baby.

他們即將擁有第一個孩子。

They'd already picked out a name for her,

他們已經為她取好名字，

Barbara, after her grandmother.

芭芭拉，跟她的祖母同名。

One night, when Susan was seven months pregnant,

在蘇珊已經懷胎7個月的某天晚上，

she started to experience contractions

她感受到子宮在激烈收縮（註：早產）

and was rushed to the emergency room.

然後被緊急的送往急診室。

The baby was delivered through a C-section,

孩子用剖腹的方式生產下來，

but Barbara suffered cerebral anoxia,

但芭芭拉卻出現了缺氧狀態，

a loss of oxygen to the brain.

她的腦部缺氧。

Unable to breathe on her own,

這使她沒辦法自行呼吸，

she was put on a ventilator.

要使用呼吸器輔助。

Two days later,

2天後，

the doctors gave the Mitchells

醫生給米切爾夫婦

a choice:

一個選擇。

They could either remove Barbara

他們可以將生命維持裝備

off the life support,

從芭芭拉身上移開，

in which case she would die within a matter of hours,

這情況下她會在幾個小時內就死去，

or they could keep her on life support,

或者，選擇繼續使用生命維持裝備，

in which case she might still die

這情況下她還是有可能

within a matter of days.

在幾天後死去，

If she survived, she would remain

但若她能生存下來，

in a permanent vegetative state,

也將永遠呈現植物人的狀態，

never able to walk, talk

永遠不會走、不會說、

or interact with others.

無法與人互動。

What do they do?

他們怎麼選？

What do any parent do?

這種情況下身為父母會怎麼做？

In a study I conducted

這項研究，我與二位學者合作，

with Simona Botti and Kristina Orfali,

西蒙娜-博蒂和克里斯蒂娜-歐發莉，

American and French parents

分別與美國地區、法國地區

were interviewed.

的父母會談。

They had all suffered

這些父母都承受了

the same tragedy.

同樣的悲劇。

In all cases, the life support was removed,

在所有訪談的案例中，都選擇移除生命維持裝置，

and the infants had died.

新生兒也都因此死去了。

But there was a big difference.

但這其中最不一樣的是，

In France, the doctors decided whether and when

在法國，生命維持裝置該不該移除、何時移除

the life support would be removed,

是由醫生來決定，

while in the United States,

在美國，

the final decision rested with the parents.

是由父母來做最後的決定。

We wondered:

我們好奇：

does this have an effect on how the parents

身為父母，面對即將失去摯愛的時候，

cope with the loss of their loved one?

他們是否會下這樣的決定？

We found that it did.

我們發現，他們還是會自己做決定。

Even up to a year later,

即使時間過了1年，

American parents

美國籍的父母

were more likely to express negative emotions,

相較於法國籍的父母

as compared to their French counterparts.

所感受的負面情緒比較高。

French parents were more likely to say things like,

法國籍父母大多會這樣想：

"Noah was here for so little time,

"雖然諾哈在世上的時間很短，

but he taught us so much.

但是他教了我們許多事情。

He gave us a new perspective on life."

他讓我們對生命有了新的體悟"。

American parents were more likely to say things like,

美國籍的父母大多是這麼想：

"What if? What if?"

"若那時這樣會怎樣？若那樣又會怎樣？"

Another parent complained,

其中一位家長還抱怨：

"I feel as if they purposefully tortured me.

"我覺得這像是刻意要折磨我一樣，

How did they get me to do that?"

他們怎麼會讓我做這種事情？"

And another parent said,

另一位家長這麼說：

"I feel as if I've played a role

"我覺得自己在扮演

in an execution."

一個劊子手"。

But when the American parents were asked

但是當詢問這些美國籍父母

if they would rather have had

若不用給你們做決定

the doctors make the decision,

而是給醫生來做的話怎麼樣，

they all said, "No."

他們的答案都是"不要"。

They could not imagine

他們沒辦法想像

turning that choice over to another,

將這個選擇機會讓給別人，

even though having made that choice

即使他們知道做這個決定

made them feel trapped,

會讓他們受盡煎熬、

guilty, angry.

罪惡感、憤怒。

In a number of cases

在這些案例中，

they were even clinically depressed.

甚至有人出現了重度憂鬱症。

These parents could not contemplate

但這些父母沒辦法

giving up the choice,

放棄這個選擇的機會，

because to do so would have gone contrary

因為如果這麼做的話，

to everything they had been taught

就會跟以前被教導的原則相互違背，

and everything they had come to believe

還有那些

about the power

他們所認同的

and purpose of choice.

選擇的意義與權力。

In her essay, "The White Album,"

在作家瓊．蒂蒂安（註：Joan Didion）

Joan Didion writes,

的"白色相簿"這本書中，有一段評論：（註：The White Album）

"We tell ourselves stories

"為了生存，

in order to live.

我們會編造一段故事給自己。

We interpret what we see,

我們會盡力詮釋自己的所見，

select the most workable

從眾多的選項中

of the multiple choices.

挑出最可行的來做。

We live entirely by the imposition

我們的生活是用各式各樣的圖片

of a narrative line

然後用拼板印刷

upon disparate images,

所呈現的線性故事。

by the idea with which we have learned to freeze

這種概念，讓我們

the shifting phantasmagoria,

將跟風一樣千變萬化的生活體驗，

which is our actual experience."

變成像結凍般的死硬"。

The story Americans tell,

這是美國人的故事，

the story upon which

這建立在

the American dream depends,

美國夢之上的故事，

is the story of limitless choice.

充斥著無止盡的選擇。

This narrative

這則美國夢的故事

promises so much:

充斥著以下的東西：

freedom, happiness,

自由，快樂，

success.

成就。

It lays the world at your feet and says,

這故事是把世界踩在自己的腳下，並疾呼：

"You can have anything, everything."

'你可以擁有一切，所有的一切"。

It's a great story,

這本書的故事內容很棒，

and it's understandable why they would be reluctant

也能讓人理解為什麼美國人不願意

to revise it.

修正個種觀念。

But when you take a close look,

但仔細點看，

you start to see the holes,

你會發現這樣是有缺陷的，

and you start to see that the story

你會開始注意到這則故事，

can be told in many other ways.

是可以用很多方式去詮釋的。

Americans have so often tried to

美國人都試著

disseminate their ideas of choice,

去傳播自己對於選擇的觀念，

believing that they will be, or ought to be,

並相信他人都要，或說是必須要

welcomed with open hearts and minds.

用開放的心胸去接受這種觀念。

But the history books and the daily news tell us

但是歷史記錄和每日的新聞，

it doesn't always work out that way.

都說明了這套並不是這樣順利運作的。

The phantasmagoria,

說故事的手法

the actual experience that we try to understand

是隨地方而千變萬化的，

and organize through narrative,

我們都試著用說故事的方法，

varies from place to place.

去了解並組織自己真實的經驗。

No single narrative serves the needs

任何地區的任何人，

of everyone everywhere.

都不會只滿足於一種說故事的手法。

Moreover, Americans themselves

而且，美國人自己

could benefit from incorporating

也能因為吸收他人的敘事技巧

new perspectives into their own narrative,

而有所受益，

which has been driving their choices

而這套敘事技巧已經驅使他們的選擇

for so long.

好一段時間。

Robert Frost once said that,

羅伯-弗斯特曾說：（註：美國詩人）

"It is poetry that is lost in translation."

"詩，就是在翻譯過程中失去的東西"。

This suggests that

這句話是說，

whatever is beautiful and moving,

不論是什麼有多麼美麗，多麼動人，

whatever gives us a new way to see,

不論是什麼讓我們有了新的體悟，

cannot be communicated to those

都沒有辦法

who speak a different language.

將這種感覺用不同語言表達出來。

But Joseph Brodsky said that,

但約瑟夫-布羅斯基卻說：（註：蘇聯詩人）

"It is poetry

"所謂的詩，

that is gained in translation,"

就是從翻譯過程中得到的"。

suggesting that translation

這句話是說

can be a creative,

翻譯過程能產生想像力，

transformative act.

轉化成動力。

When it comes to choice,

在翻譯過程中要面臨抉擇時，

we have far more to gain than to lose

透過許多不同的翻譯敘事手法，

by engaging in the many

我們從詩中得到的感觸

translations of the narratives.

會比失去的還要多。

Instead of replacing

這並不是

one story with another,

要用另一個故事來取代，

we can learn from and revel in

我們可以從翻譯過程中學習到新事物，

the many versions that exist

並陶醉在不同的翻譯版本中，

and the many that have yet to be written.

甚至陶醉在非原詩的意境裡。

No matter where we're from

不論我們從哪裡來，

and what your narrative is,

也不論我們敘事的手法為何，

we all have a responsibility

我們都有責任

to open ourselves up to a wider array

打開心房，更廣泛的去接納

of what choice can do,

各種選擇，

and what it can represent.

還有這些選擇代表的意義。

And this does not lead to

這樣才不會讓

a paralyzing moral relativism.

"道德相對主義"停擺（註：某些道德價值只適用於特定文化範圍內）

Rather, it teaches us when

相反的，這會教導我們

and how to act.

何時且如何行動。

It brings us that much closer

讓我們

to realizing the full potential of choice,

更能了解各種選擇所隱藏的含意，

to inspiring the hope

更接近能鼓舞人心的的希望

and achieving the freedom

同時達到

that choice promises

總是無法分享出去的

but doesn't always deliver.

自由選擇的承諾。

If we learn to speak to one another,

若我們與人交談，

albeit through translation,

即使要靠翻譯才能順利溝通，

then we can begin to see choice

我們就能發現，

in all its strangeness,

"選擇"它的不可思議之處，

complexity

複雜處，

and compelling beauty.

和它迷人的美麗之處。

Thank you.

謝謝各位。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Bruno Giussani: Thank you.

布魯諾-吉桑尼：謝謝妳。

Sheena, there is a detail about your biography

希娜，目前還沒有任何關於妳的書籍，

that we have not written in the program book.

但是我們已經聽過你的許多事蹟，

But by now it's evident to everyone in this room. You're blind.

不過在這個小房間裡最明顯的是，妳是個盲人。

And I guess one of the questions on everybody's mind is:

我想現場所有人心理一定都有一個疑問：

How does that influence your study of choosing

是什麼讓妳想去做"選擇"的研究？

because that's an activity

因為做選擇時

that for most people is associated with visual inputs

大多數人都會仰賴視覺，

like aesthetics and color and so on?

像是審美觀，顏色等等諸如此類。

Sheena Iyengar: Well, it's funny that you should ask that

希娜-艾因嘉：嗯，你問的問題很有趣，

because one of the things that's interesting about being blind

有趣的點在於，若看不見事物，

is you actually get a different vantage point

就能讓你站在一個很不一樣的有利位置，

when you observe the way

並好好觀察

sighted people make choices.

一般常人在做選擇的現象。

And as you just mentioned, there's lots of choices out there

就你剛剛提到的，日常生活中

that are very visual these days.

我們都很依賴視覺來做選擇。

Yeah, I -- as you would expect --

是呀，對我來說，或是各位可以想像--

get pretty frustrated by choices

我對某些選擇會感到挫折，

like what nail polish to put on

像是該上什麼顏色的指甲油，

because I have to rely on what other people suggest.

這件事情我真的要倚賴別人的意見。

And I can't decide.

我沒辦法自己下決定。

And so one time I was in a beauty salon,

有次我到髮廊去，

and I was trying to decide between two very light shades of pink.

我必須在二款淡粉紅色之間的指甲油做出選擇。

And one was called "Ballet Slippers."

一款的顏色是"粉芭蕾"（註：Ballet Slippers）

And the other one was called "Adorable."

另一款是"粉可愛"（註：Adorable）

(Laughter)

（笑）

And so I asked these two ladies,

所以我問了2位小姐，

and the one lady told me, "Well, you should definitely wear 'Ballet Slippers.'"

其中一位告訴我："嗯，你一定要試試看『粉芭蕾』"

"Well, what does it look like?"

"它看起來是怎樣的顏色？"

"Well, it's a very elegant shade of pink."

"嗯，這是非常優雅的淺粉色"。

"Okay, great."

"喔喔，感覺不錯"

The other lady tells me to wear "Adorable."

而另一位小姐告訴我要用"粉可愛"。

"What does it look like?"

"那它看起來是怎樣的顏色？"

"It's a glamorous shade of pink."

"它看起來是較嫵媚的淺粉色"

And so I asked them, "Well, how do I tell them apart?

然後我問她們："那我該怎麼區分它們？"

What's different about them?"

"這2者有什麼差別？"

And they said, "Well, one is elegant, the other one's glamorous."

她們回答："喔，一個比較優雅，一個比較嫵媚"

Okay, we got that.

好吧，我懂了。

And the only thing they had consensus on:

我想她們心裡唯一的共識就是：

well, if I could see them, I would

嗯，如果我看的見，

clearly be able to tell them apart.

我就能清楚的分辨這2種顏色。

(Laughter)

（笑）

And what I wondered was whether they were being affected

而我猜想，她們有被

by the name or the content of the color,

這二款顏色的名稱所影響了。

so I decided to do a little experiment.

所以我決定做一個小小的實驗。

So I brought these two bottles of nail polish into the laboratory,

我將這二罐指甲油帶回實驗室，

and I stripped the labels off.

撕掉標籤，

And I brought women into the laboratory,

然後帶幾個女性到實驗室裡，

and I asked them, "Which one would you pick?"

一個一個問："妳會選哪一個？"

50 percent of the women accused me of playing a trick,

有50％的女實驗者認為我在耍人，

of putting the same color nail polish

她們覺得

in both those bottles.

這2罐指甲油是一模一樣的。

(Laughter)

（笑）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

At which point you start to wonder who the trick's really played on.

這時候你就會猜想究竟是誰在耍把戲了。

Now, of the women that could tell them apart,

而在撕掉標籤的情況下，

when the labels were off, they picked "Adorable,"

那些能分辨的女性會選擇"粉可愛"，

and when the labels were on,

若把標籤貼回去，

they picked "Ballet Slippers."

這些女性會選"粉芭蕾"。

So as far as I can tell,

因此，據我所知，

a rose by any other name

一款玫瑰只要有不同名字，

probably does look different

就能讓它的外觀看起來與其他款不同

and maybe even smells different.

甚至聞起來也會不同。

BG: Thank you. Sheena Iyengar. Thank you Sheena.

謝謝妳，希娜-艾因嘉，非常謝謝妳。

(Applause)

（掌聲）