Why we think it's OK to cheat and steal (sometimes) | Dan Ariely

譯者: Coco Shen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

I want to talk to you today a little bit

今日我想要稍微談論

about predictable irrationality.

那些預知的非理性

And my interest in irrational behavior

我對非理性的行為態度產生興趣

started many years ago in the hospital.

從很多年以前開始，在一個醫院裏

I was burned very badly.

當時我嚴重燒傷

And if you spend a lot of time in hospital,

如果你在醫院裏待了很長時間

you'll see a lot of types of irrationalities.

你將會看見許多不同類型的荒謬

And the one that particularly bothered me in the burn department

在醫院的燒燙傷部門讓我最難以接受的荒謬

was the process by which the nurses took the bandage off me.

發生在護士為我拆除繃帶的時候

Now, you must have all taken a Band-Aid off at some point,

每個人應該都有使用OK繃的經驗

and you must have wondered what's the right approach.

你也應該想過怎樣撕掉才是最好的

Do you rip it off quickly -- short duration but high intensity --

你是瞬間撕開 － 時間短但很痛

or do you take your Band-Aid off slowly --

還是慢慢地把它撕掉

you take a long time, but each second is not as painful --

雖然時間長，但感覺不這麼痛

which one of those is the right approach?

哪一種才是比較好的方式？

The nurses in my department thought that the right approach

當時在我部門的護士認為一次快速的撕開才是正確的

was the ripping one, so they would grab hold and they would rip,

她們緊抓，然後撕開

and they would grab hold and they would rip.

然後再緊抓，再撕開

And because I had 70 percent of my body burned, it would take about an hour.

當時我身體有百分之七十的燒傷，整個過程要一個小時

And as you can imagine,

你可以想像

I hated that moment of ripping with incredible intensity.

我非常痛恨撕開繃帶 極端痛苦的那刻

And I would try to reason with them and say,

我努力地想和她們講理

"Why don't we try something else?

“我們不能試試其他方法嗎？

Why don't we take it a little longer --

我們不能花長一點的時間

maybe two hours instead of an hour -- and have less of this intensity?"

或許兩個小時 － 讓痛苦不要這麼強烈？"

And the nurses told me two things.

護士告訴我兩件事

They told me that they had the right model of the patient --

她們告訴我她們知道什麼對患者是最好的

that they knew what was the right thing to do to minimize my pain --

她們知道如何減低我的痛苦

and they also told me that the word patient doesn't mean

並且患者這個詞的意思

to make suggestions or to interfere or ...

不包括”提出建議”或“嘗試干涉”

This is not just in Hebrew, by the way.

不只在希伯來文是如此

It's in every language I've had experience with so far.

幾乎我目前遇見的所有語言都是如此

And, you know, there's not much -- there wasn't much I could do,

於是我無能為力

and they kept on doing what they were doing.

她們繼續她們的方法

And about three years later, when I left the hospital,

三年後，當我離開醫院時

I started studying at the university.

我開始在大學做研究

And one of the most interesting lessons I learned

我在學校裏學的最有趣的事情是

was that there is an experimental method

“實驗法”的存在

that if you have a question you can create a replica of this question

你可以靠複製經驗 來嘗試找出解答

in some abstract way, and you can try to examine this question,

抽象地說，你可以試著檢驗你的問題

maybe learn something about the world.

以嘗試瞭解這個世界上的事情

So that's what I did.

於是我就這麼做了

I was still interested

我仍然對

in this question of how do you take bandages off burn patients.

如何撕開患者身上的繃帶這個問題很有興趣

So originally I didn't have much money,

剛開始我沒有什麼資金

so I went to a hardware store and I bought a carpenter's vice.

我去五金行買了一個木匠用的老虎鉗

And I would bring people to the lab and I would put their finger in it,

我把那些來到實驗室的人的手指放到裏面

and I would crunch it a little bit.

然後“嘎吱”一下

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And I would crunch it for long periods and short periods,

我會用較長的時間或較短的時間擠壓

and pain that went up and pain that went down,

那些較為嚴重的痛 和較輕微的痛

and with breaks and without breaks -- all kinds of versions of pain.

有休息的 和沒有休息的 － 許多不同種類的痛

And when I finished hurting people a little bit, I would ask them,

當我結束傷害他們的時候，我會問

so, how painful was this? Or, how painful was this?

這樣有多痛？那樣又有多痛？

Or, if you had to choose between the last two,

如果你可以從中選擇一種的話

which one would you choose?

你會選擇哪一種？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I kept on doing this for a while.

我這麼做了一陣子

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And then, like all good academic projects, I got more funding.

就像所有優秀的學術研究一樣，我有更多資金

I moved to sounds, electrical shocks --

我開始加入聲波，電擊

I even had a pain suit that I could get people to feel much more pain.

我甚至製作了一件“疼痛服”讓人們能感受到更多痛楚

But at the end of this process,

但在研究結束後

what I learned was that the nurses were wrong.

我發覺護士們是錯的

Here were wonderful people with good intentions

雖然她們都是善良的人

and plenty of experience, and nevertheless

經驗豐富，但就算如此

they were getting things wrong predictably all the time.

她們的觀念仍然是錯誤的

It turns out that because we don't encode duration

因為在我們測量痛楚時

in the way that we encode intensity,

我們並沒有考慮到延續性

I would have had less pain if the duration would have been longer

如果把時間拉長

and the intensity was lower.

我的痛楚就會減低

It turns out it would have been better to start with my face,

最好的方法是從最痛的臉部開始

which was much more painful, and move toward my legs,

再逐漸地往腿部下移

giving me a trend of improvement over time --

讓我有一種逐漸減緩的感覺

that would have been also less painful.

這樣也能減低我的痛苦

And it also turns out that it would have been good

如果我可以在過程中稍作休息

to give me breaks in the middle to kind of recuperate from the pain.

讓我有一些時間從痛楚中恢復

All of these would have been great things to do,

這所有的方法都能改善我當時的情況

and my nurses had no idea.

但這些護士卻毫無所悉

And from that point on I started thinking,

從那時我開始想

are the nurses the only people in the world who get things wrong

這些護士是全世界唯一有這種錯誤認知的人

in this particular decision, or is it a more general case?

在這件特別的事情上，還是這其實是一種普遍現象？

And it turns out it's a more general case --

於是我發現 其實這是一個普遍現象

there's a lot of mistakes we do.

我們時常犯下這樣的錯誤

And I want to give you one example of one of these irrationalities,

在這裏我想以作弊作為例子

and I want to talk to you about cheating.

來討論這些非理性

And the reason I picked cheating is because it's interesting,

我選擇作弊的原因是因為它很有趣

but also it tells us something, I think,

也因為它也為我們現在股市的現狀

about the stock market situation we're in.

提供了一些線索

So, my interest in cheating started

我對作弊的興趣從

when Enron came on the scene, exploded all of a sudden,

美國安隆公司突然爆發醜聞開始

and I started thinking about what is happening here.

我開始思考究竟發生了什麼事

Is it the case that there was kind of

難道這是來自一些

a few apples who are capable of doing these things,

害群之馬才能犯下的例子

or are we talking a more endemic situation,

還是一種地方性的現象

that many people are actually capable of behaving this way?

許多人都抱持著這樣的態度？

So, like we usually do, I decided to do a simple experiment.

於是，我們決定故技重施，進行一些簡單的試驗

And here's how it went.

我們是這樣做的

If you were in the experiment, I would pass you a sheet of paper

如果你參加了這個實驗，我會給你一張紙

with 20 simple math problems that everybody could solve,

上面有二十個人人能解決的簡單數學問題

but I wouldn't give you enough time.

但我不會給你足夠的時間

When the five minutes were over, I would say,

當五分鐘到了以後，我會說

"Pass me the sheets of paper, and I'll pay you a dollar per question."

“把紙交給我，答對一題我就給你一塊錢。”

People did this. I would pay people four dollars for their task --

人們這麼做了。我付他們四塊

on average people would solve four problems.

平均來說，人可以解決四個問題

Other people I would tempt to cheat.

我嘗試引誘其中一些人作弊

I would pass their sheet of paper.

我會給他們一張紙

When the five minutes were over, I would say,

五分鐘到了以後，我會說

"Please shred the piece of paper.

“請將那張紙撕碎

Put the little pieces in your pocket or in your backpack,

把碎片放在口袋或是背包裏，

and tell me how many questions you got correctly."

然後告訴我你答對了幾題。”

People now solved seven questions on average.

平均突然從四題變成了七題

Now, it wasn't as if there was a few bad apples --

不是有幾個害群之馬 --

a few people cheated a lot.

換句話說，一小群人作很大的弊

Instead, what we saw is a lot of people who cheat a little bit.

而是一大群人作一些小弊

Now, in economic theory,

在經濟學理論上

cheating is a very simple cost-benefit analysis.

作弊是一種非常簡單的成本效益分析

You say, what's the probability of being caught?

被抓到的可能性有多高？

How much do I stand to gain from cheating?

我作弊的好處有多少？

And how much punishment would I get if I get caught?

被抓到會有怎樣的懲罰？

And you weigh these options out --

你衡量這些選項

you do the simple cost-benefit analysis,

一個簡單的成本效益分析

and you decide whether it's worthwhile to commit the crime or not.

然後決定是否值得犯下罪行

So, we try to test this.

我們對此進行一些測驗

For some people, we varied how much money they could get away with --

我們開始給他們不同數目的金錢

how much money they could steal.

他們所能偷竊的數目

We paid them 10 cents per correct question, 50 cents,

我們給他們十分錢，五十分

a dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars per correct question.

一塊錢，五塊錢，到十塊錢一個問題

You would expect that as the amount of money on the table increases,

你預估當桌上的錢增多時

people would cheat more, but in fact it wasn't the case.

人們也更願意作弊。但事實上卻不是

We got a lot of people cheating by stealing by a little bit.

仍有許多人為了很少的金錢作弊

What about the probability of being caught?

那難道是被抓到的可能性嗎？

Some people shredded half the sheet of paper,

有些人只撕了半張紙

so there was some evidence left.

還有些證據留下

Some people shredded the whole sheet of paper.

有些人撕碎了整張紙

Some people shredded everything, went out of the room,

有些人徹底撕碎了全部，走出房間

and paid themselves from the bowl of money that had over 100 dollars.

然後從放有超過百元美金的碗裏拿走錢

You would expect that as the probability of being caught goes down,

你會預估當被抓的可能性降低

people would cheat more, but again, this was not the case.

人們作弊的幾率便會提升，但卻不是如此

Again, a lot of people cheated by just by a little bit,

又一次地，許多人作了一些小弊

and they were insensitive to these economic incentives.

人們並沒被這些經濟學所說的誘因影響

So we said, "If people are not sensitive

我們想“如果這些符合經濟學邏輯的解答

to the economic rational theory explanations, to these forces,

這些原因，對人們不造成影響

what could be going on?"

那麼究竟發生了什麼事？”

And we thought maybe what is happening is that there are two forces.

於是我們想，或許有兩種力量

At one hand, we all want to look at ourselves in the mirror

一方面，我們都有自省的能力

and feel good about ourselves, so we don't want to cheat.

都希望對自己感覺良好，所以我們不想作弊

On the other hand, we can cheat a little bit,

另一方面，我們作一點小弊

and still feel good about ourselves.

在還能對自己感覺良好的範圍裏

So, maybe what is happening is that

所以或許

there's a level of cheating we can't go over,

我們心中有一種不能跨越的尺度

but we can still benefit from cheating at a low degree,

但我們仍然能從一些小奸小惡中獲利

as long as it doesn't change our impressions about ourselves.

只要不要讓我們自己感到不齒

We call this like a personal fudge factor.

我們說這叫“自我蒙混因素”

Now, how would you test a personal fudge factor?

但我們該如何測試自我蒙混因素呢？

Initially we said, what can we do to shrink the fudge factor?

剛開始我們說，我們該怎麼做來降低蒙混因素呢？

So, we got people to the lab, and we said,

當人們進入實驗室時，我們說

"We have two tasks for you today."

“今日我們要給你兩個任務。”

First, we asked half the people

第一，我們問其中一半的人

to recall either 10 books they read in high school,

回想十本他們在高中所看過的書

or to recall The Ten Commandments,

或是回憶聖經中的十誡

and then we tempted them with cheating.

然後我們嘗試讓他們作弊。

Turns out the people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments --

我們發覺那些嘗試回想十誡的人

and in our sample nobody could recall all of The Ten Commandments --

雖然在我們的標本中沒有任何人能完整背誦出十誡

but those people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments,

但那些嘗試回想聖經十誡的人

given the opportunity to cheat, did not cheat at all.

面對作弊的可能性，卻沒有作弊

It wasn't that the more religious people --

那並不代表對宗教信仰比較虔誠的人

the people who remembered more of the Commandments -- cheated less,

那些能背誦出較多十誡的人，比較少作弊

and the less religious people --

或那些對宗教信仰比較不虔誠的人

the people who couldn't remember almost any Commandments --

那些無法回憶出任何一誡的人

cheated more.

比較會作弊

The moment people thought about trying to recall The Ten Commandments,

在人們嘗試回想十誡的那一刻

they stopped cheating.

他們便不作弊了

In fact, even when we gave self-declared atheists

事實上，就算我們讓那些自稱是無神論的人

the task of swearing on the Bible and we give them a chance to cheat,

把手放在聖經上發誓，然後再給他們作弊的機會

they don't cheat at all.

他們也仍然沒有作弊

Now, Ten Commandments is something that is hard

要把聖經十誡帶進教育系統裏

to bring into the education system, so we said,

是一件困難的事，所以我們說

"Why don't we get people to sign the honor code?"

“不然我們讓人們在榮譽行為準則上簽名吧？”

So, we got people to sign,

於是，我們讓他們簽名，

"I understand that this short survey falls under the MIT Honor Code."

“我認知這份簡短調查遵行麻省理工學院的榮譽準則”

Then they shredded it. No cheating whatsoever.

然後把它撕碎。沒有任何人作弊

And this is particularly interesting,

這真是非常有趣

because MIT doesn't have an honor code.

因為麻省理工學院根本沒有任何榮譽準則

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So, all this was about decreasing the fudge factor.

這是有關降低蒙混因素的

What about increasing the fudge factor?

又如何提高蒙混因素呢？

The first experiment -- I walked around MIT

第一個實驗中 我在麻省理工學院遊走

and I distributed six-packs of Cokes in the refrigerators --

我把半打可樂放進不同的冰箱中

these were common refrigerators for the undergrads.

都是些給大學生的普通冰箱

And I came back to measure what we technically call

然後再回去測量我們所說的

the half-lifetime of Coke -- how long does it last in the refrigerators?

可樂的人生週期 - 它們能在冰箱裏留多久？

As you can expect it doesn't last very long; people take it.

你可以想像那並沒有多久。人們拿走它們。

In contrast, I took a plate with six one-dollar bills,

相對的，我把一個裝著六章一塊錢美金鈔票的盤子

and I left those plates in the same refrigerators.

放進那些同樣的冰箱

No bill ever disappeared.

沒有任何一張美金被拿走

Now, this is not a good social science experiment,

這大概不是一個好的社會科學實驗

so to do it better I did the same experiment

為了改善我再做了一次一樣的實驗

as I described to you before.

就像我和諸位形容的一樣

A third of the people we passed the sheet, they gave it back to us.

三分之一的人把試驗紙交會給我們

A third of the people we passed it to, they shredded it,

三分之一的人把紙撕碎

they came to us and said,

他們跟我們說

"Mr. Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X dollars."

“先生，我解決了幾個問題，給我幾塊錢。”

A third of the people, when they finished shredding the piece of paper,

三分之一的人，在他們把紙撕碎以後

they came to us and said,

他們跟我們說

"Mr Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X tokens."

“先生，我解決了幾個問題，給我幾個代幣。”

We did not pay them with dollars; we paid them with something else.

我們沒有付他們現金，而是一些其他的代替品

And then they took the something else, they walked 12 feet to the side,

他們拿著這些代替品，走到十二英尺遠的旁邊

and exchanged it for dollars.

再把代替品換成現金

Think about the following intuition.

試著想想以下的假設狀況

How bad would you feel about taking a pencil from work home,

從公司拿一支鉛筆

compared to how bad would you feel

或是從公司錢櫃裏拿走十分錢

about taking 10 cents from a petty cash box?

哪一種感覺比較差？

These things feel very differently.

這些事給人的感覺差異很大

Would being a step removed from cash for a few seconds

把現金移動到稍為遠一點的地方，改拿代幣

by being paid by token make a difference?

能不能造成什麼差異？

Our subjects doubled their cheating.

我們實驗物件的作弊情況提高了兩倍

I'll tell you what I think

稍後我會告訴你

about this and the stock market in a minute.

這些例子和股市有什麼關聯

But this did not solve the big problem I had with Enron yet,

但這仍然無法解決我對安隆公司的疑問

because in Enron, there's also a social element.

因為在安隆，還有一個社會性的元素

People see each other behaving.

人們眼見其他人的作為

In fact, every day when we open the news

事實上，每天我們看新聞

we see examples of people cheating.

都能看到人們作弊欺騙的例子

What does this cause us?

這怎麼影響我們？

So, we did another experiment.

所以，我們又做了另一個實驗

We got a big group of students to be in the experiment,

我們召來一大群學生來參加實驗

and we prepaid them.

我們先付他們錢

So everybody got an envelope with all the money for the experiment,

所以每個人都先拿到裝著實驗回饋的信封

and we told them that at the end, we asked them

在結束時，我們請他們

to pay us back the money they didn't make. OK?

把沒有賺到的錢還給我們

The same thing happens.

同樣的事情發生了

When we give people the opportunity to cheat, they cheat.

當我們給人們作弊的機會，他們作弊了

They cheat just by a little bit, all the same.

他們只作了一點小弊，但都一樣

But in this experiment we also hired an acting student.

但這次我們請來一位學生演員

This acting student stood up after 30 seconds, and said,

這個學生演員在三十秒後站起來，說

"I solved everything. What do I do now?"

“我解開所有題目了，現在呢？”

And the experimenter said, "If you've finished everything, go home.

實驗者則回答”如果你做完所有題目了，就回去吧。“

That's it. The task is finished."

就這樣。任務結束了。

So, now we had a student -- an acting student --

所以現在我們有了一個學生 - 一個演員

that was a part of the group.

在這組人中

Nobody knew it was an actor.

沒有人知道他是個演員

And they clearly cheated in a very, very serious way.

只知道他明目張膽的作弊

What would happen to the other people in the group?

這會對在場的其他人有什麼影響？

Will they cheat more, or will they cheat less?

他們會作更多的弊，或是相反？

Here is what happens.

事情是這樣發生的。

It turns out it depends on what kind of sweatshirt they're wearing.

結果是，那取決於他們身上穿的衣服

Here is the thing.

因為

We ran this at Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh.

我們在卡內基梅隆和匹茲堡大學進行這次實驗

And at Pittsburgh there are two big universities,

在匹茲堡有兩家主要的大學

Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh.

卡內基梅隆和匹茲堡大學

All of the subjects sitting in the experiment

而我們的實驗物件

were Carnegie Mellon students.

都是卡內基梅隆大學的學生

When the actor who was getting up was a Carnegie Mellon student --

當站起來的演員穿著卡內基梅隆的衣服

he was actually a Carnegie Mellon student --

他其實也是個卡內基梅隆的學生

but he was a part of their group, cheating went up.

也就是說他是團隊中的一員，作弊的情況增加了

But when he actually had a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt,

但當他穿著一件匹茲堡大學的外衣時

cheating went down.

作弊的情況便減少了

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now, this is important, because remember,

這是很重要的一點，因為記住

when the moment the student stood up,

在這個學生站起來的那一刻

it made it clear to everybody that they could get away with cheating,

他對在場所有人證明作弊是可行的

because the experimenter said,

因為實驗者說

"You've finished everything. Go home," and they went with the money.

”你做完所有題目了，回去吧。“他們就帶著錢回去了

So it wasn't so much about the probability of being caught again.

所以這和被抓到的幾率無關

It was about the norms for cheating.

而是一種作弊的典範

If somebody from our in-group cheats and we see them cheating,

如果在我們的團隊中有人作弊，我們也看到他們作弊

we feel it's more appropriate, as a group, to behave this way.

我們便覺得那是適當的，身為一個團隊，有這一樣的態度

But if it's somebody from another group, these terrible people --

但如果是個外人，那些糟糕的人

I mean, not terrible in this --

不是說他們做題做的不好

but somebody we don't want to associate ourselves with,

而是那些我們不想被當成一丘之貉的人

from another university, another group,

那些其他學校的，其他團體的

all of a sudden people's awareness of honesty goes up --

突然人們的誠實和警覺性都提高了

a little bit like The Ten Commandments experiment --

有點類似之前的聖經十誡實驗

and people cheat even less.

作弊的情況更加降低了。

So, what have we learned from this about cheating?

所以，我們究竟從這些實驗中學到了什麼？

We've learned that a lot of people can cheat.

我們知道許多人都會作弊

They cheat just by a little bit.

他們作一點點小弊

When we remind people about their morality, they cheat less.

當我們喚起人們的道德感，作弊的情況減少

When we get bigger distance from cheating,

當我們提高和作弊之中的距離

from the object of money, for example, people cheat more.

像是現金，作弊的情況便提高

And when we see cheating around us,

當我們看到身邊的人作弊

particularly if it's a part of our in-group, cheating goes up.

尤其是我們的同儕，作弊的情況便提高

Now, if we think about this in terms of the stock market,

當我們想到股市的時候

think about what happens.

想到現在發生的事情

What happens in a situation when you create something

當你創造了這個環境

where you pay people a lot of money

你付他們很多的錢

to see reality in a slightly distorted way?

扭曲了他們對現實的看法？

Would they not be able to see it this way?

他們能不這麼看嗎？

Of course they would.

當然他們會這樣做。

What happens when you do other things,

當你又做了一些其他的事情

like you remove things from money?

像是用一些東西代替現金？

You call them stock, or stock options, derivatives,

你叫他們股票，或是選擇權，衍生商品

mortgage-backed securities.

按揭證券

Could it be that with those more distant things,

有沒有可能因為這些東西聽來遙遠

it's not a token for one second,

它不只是一個幾秒外的代幣

it's something that is many steps removed from money

而是離現金有一段距離的象徵物

for a much longer time -- could it be that people will cheat even more?

冠以更長的時間 - 人們是否會更容易作弊？

And what happens to the social environment

在今日的社會環境中，人們看到他人的行為時

when people see other people behave around them?

又會有什麼影響和反應？

I think all of those forces worked in a very bad way

這全都是一些很不好的因素和影響

in the stock market.

在今日的股市中

More generally, I want to tell you something

我想泛泛地談一些

about behavioral economics.

有關行為經濟學的事

We have many intuitions in our life,

在人生中我們有許多直覺

and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong.

卻有許多是錯誤的

The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?

問題是，我們該去檢視這些直覺嗎？

We can think about how we're going to test this intuition

我們可以思考我們該如何去檢視這些直覺

in our private life, in our business life,

從我們的私生活，我們的公事

and most particularly when it goes to policy,

特別是制定政策的時候

when we think about things like No Child Left Behind,

當我們想到一些像“一個都不能少”這種教育政策

when you create new stock markets, when you create other policies --

當你開發一些新的股票市場，當你制定一些新的政策

taxation, health care and so on.

稅法，健康保險等

And the difficulty of testing our intuition

檢測直覺是非常困難的

was the big lesson I learned

這是在我回去和這些護士談話時

when I went back to the nurses to talk to them.

學到的一個教訓。

So I went back to talk to them

我回到當初的醫院

and tell them what I found out about removing bandages.

告訴他們對於撕開繃帶方法的新發現

And I learned two interesting things.

我學到兩件有趣的事

One was that my favorite nurse, Ettie,

一是我最喜歡的護士，Ettie

told me that I did not take her pain into consideration.

告訴我我並沒有考慮到她的痛苦

She said, "Of course, you know, it was very painful for you.

她說“當然，那對你來說很痛苦

But think about me as a nurse,

但想想身為護士的我

taking, removing the bandages of somebody I liked,

要從一個我喜歡的人身上撕開這些繃帶

and had to do it repeatedly over a long period of time.

並且要長期不斷地重複這個動作

Creating so much torture was not something that was good for me, too."

我也不想為自己帶來這麼大的折磨，那也並不好受。”

And she said maybe part of the reason was it was difficult for her.

她說，或許對她來說如此困難是因為

But it was actually more interesting than that, because she said,

這實在非常有趣，因為她說

"I did not think that your intuition was right.

“我不覺得你的直覺是對的

I felt my intuition was correct."

我覺得我的直覺才是對的。”

So, if you think about all of your intuitions,

所以，當想到我們的那些直覺時

it's very hard to believe that your intuition is wrong.

要相信自己的直覺是錯誤的是非常困難的。

And she said, "Given the fact that I thought my intuition was right ..." --

她說，正因為我認為我的直覺是對的

she thought her intuition was right --

她也認為她的直覺是正確的

it was very difficult for her to accept doing a difficult experiment

她很難接受這樣去做一個艱難的實驗

to try and check whether she was wrong.

來證明她是對或錯。

But in fact, this is the situation we're all in all the time.

但事實上，這正是我們每日面對的狀況

We have very strong intuitions about all kinds of things --

對許多事我們都有很強的直覺

our own ability, how the economy works,

我們自己的能力，經濟運作的方式

how we should pay school teachers.

我們應該付給學校老師多少薪水

But unless we start testing those intuitions,

但在我們真正開始去檢測這些直覺前

we're not going to do better.

我們都不會有什麼進步

And just think about how better my life would have been

只要想想如果那些護士能檢測自己的直覺

if these nurses would have been willing to check their intuition,

我的人生會有多大的改善

and how everything would have been better

每件事又會有多大的改善

if we just start doing more systematic experimentation of our intuitions.

如果我們能開始有系統性地測驗我們的直覺

Thank you very much.

非常謝謝各位。