When you're making a deal, what's going on in your brain? | Colin Camerer

Transcriber: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Thu-Huong Ha

譯者: Hao-Wei Chang 審譯者: Hermia Tsai

I'm going to talk about the strategizing brain.

我要說說大腦決策

我們要用一些不尋常組合的工具

We're going to use an unusual combination of tools

from game theory and neuroscience

從賽局理論到神經科學

to understand how people interact socially when value is on the line.

以瞭解利益糾葛時大眾的互動

So game theory is a branch of, originally, applied mathematics,

賽局理論源自應用數學

used mostly in economics and political science, a little bit in biology,

主要用在經濟和政治學 很少被應用在生物學上

它提供了關於社會行為的數學模型

that gives us a mathematical taxonomy of social life,

and it predicts what people are likely to do

當人的行為會互相影響時

and believe others will do

它可以用來預測 當人類行為會互相影響時

人可能會採取的行動

in cases where everyone's actions affect everyone else.

這包含很多事：競爭、合作、議價

That's a lot of things: competition, cooperation, bargaining,

games like hide-and-seek and poker.

一些像是捉迷藏和撲克牌的遊戲

Here's a simple game to get us started.

我們用一個簡單的遊戲開始吧

Everyone chooses a number from zero to 100.

每個人從 0 到 100 間選一個數字

We're going to compute the average of those numbers,

我們會計算這些數值的平均

and whoever's closest to two-thirds of the average wins a fixed prize.

選擇最接近平均值 2/3 數值的人贏

So you want to be a little bit below the average number

所以你會需要比平均值低一點的數值

but not too far below,

但又不要太低 而且每個人都會想要

and everyone else wants to be a little bit below the average number as well.

選比平均值低一些的數值

想想你會選什麼

Think about what you might pick.

你可能會想： 這就像是股價上揚時

As you're thinking,

this is a toy model of something like selling in the stock market

賣股票時機選擇的簡單模型

during a rising market:

你不想太早賣 因為你會減少獲利

You don't want to sell too early, because you miss out on profits,

但又不想太晚賣

but you don't want to wait too late, to when everyone else sells,

因為大家都賣完後股價會崩盤

triggering a crash.

所以你會想超前大家一步，但別過頭

You want to be a little bit ahead of the competition, but not too far ahead.

好，對於大家的想法有兩種可能

OK, here's two theories about how people might think about this,

然後我們看看數據

then we'll see some data.

有些聽起來可能會很熟悉

Some of these will sound familiar

因為你就是這麼想 因為我是用大腦理論分析出來

because you probably are thinking that way.

I'm using my brain theory to see.

A lot of people say, "I really don't know what people are going to pick,

許多人會說： 「我不知道大家會怎麼選，

但我知道平均值是 50。」

so I think the average will be 50" -- they're not being strategic at all --

這其中沒有策略思考成份

and "I'll pick two-thirds of 50, that's 33."

「我會選 50 的 2/3 ，也就是 33 。」這是個開始

That's a start.

其他人比較世故一些

Other people, who are a little more sophisticated,

消耗大腦多一點運算能力

using more working memory,

say, "I think people will pick 33,

說：「別人會因 50 而選 33 ，

because they're going to pick a response to 50,

所以我就選 22 ， 也就是 33 的 2/3 。」

and so I'll pick 22, which is two-thirds of 33."

They're doing one extra step of thinking, two steps.

他們多想了一步，也就是兩步

That's better.

這更好，當然理論上

Of course, in principle, you could do three, four or more,

你可以多想三步、四步或更多

but it starts to get very difficult.

但是想越多越困難

Just like in language and other domains,

就像在語言或其他領域

we know that it's hard for people to parse very complex sentences

要組織層疊的句子結構很困難

with a recursive structure.

順帶一題，這稱為認知層級理論

This is called the cognitive hierarchy theory,

這是我和一些人研究的東西

something I've worked on and a few other people,

and it indicates a kind of hierarchy,

這研究用來驗證

along with some assumptions about how many people stop at different steps

思考深度存在階層關係的假設

和哪些有趣變因會影響思考深度

and how the steps of thinking are affected

這部份我們等下就會看到

by lots of interesting variables and variant people,

as we'll see in a minute.

另一個不同的理論 也是較為早期、為人熟知的

A very different theory, a much more popular one and an older one,

大部份歸因於約翰．納許的《美麗境界》

due largely to John Nash of "A Beautiful Mind" fame,

is what's called "equilibrium analysis."

稱為均衡分析

So if you've ever taken a game theory course at any level,

如果你曾修過賽局理論的課

你可能都學過一些

you'll have learned a bit about this.

「均衡」是對每個人都知道

An equilibrium is a mathematical state

in which everybody has figured out exactly what everyone else will do.

其他人會怎麼做的數學狀態

這是一個有用的概念

It is a very useful concept,

but behaviorally, it may not exactly explain

但是首次應用在經濟領域

what people do the first time they play these types of economic games

或是其他現實世界的問題時

or in situations in the outside world.

它卻無法確切解釋人的行為

In this case, the equilibrium makes a very bold prediction,

在這狀況下 「均衡」是一個大膽的假設：

which is: everyone wants to be below everyone else,

每個人都會想比 其他人選的數值低

therefore, they'll play zero.

所以他們都會選 0

Let's see what happens.

讓我們來看結果 這是一個被重複多次的實驗

This experiment's been done many, many times.

我、羅斯瑪麗．納格爾及其它人

Some of the earliest ones were done in the '90s

在 90 年代進行的早期實驗

by me and Rosemarie Nagel and others.

這是由 9 千人參加 公佈在 3 家報紙和雜誌的競賽後

This is a beautiful data set of 9,000 people

who wrote in to three newspapers and magazines that had a contest.

所蒐集到的資料

The contest said, send in your numbers,

競賽問題說： 「回傳你所選的數字，

and whoever is close to two-thirds of the average will win a big prize.

而任何最接近 2/3 平均值的人獲獎」

如你所見，因為資料龐大 你可以清楚的看到一些高峰

As you can see, there's so much data here, you can see the spikes very visibly.

在 33 有一個高峰 這是只思考一步的人

There's a spike at 33 -- those are people doing one step.

There is another spike visible at 22.

另外一個高峰是在 22

順帶一題 多數人選擇 33 和 22 附近的數值

Notice, by the way, most people pick numbers right around there;

他們不一定只選 33 或 22

they don't necessarily pick exactly 33 and 22.

所以在附近會有一些雜訊

There's something a bit noisy around it.

但是你可以看到這些高峰確實存在

But you can see those spikes on that end.

另外一些人

There's another group of people

對均衡理論有深入的瞭解

who seem to have a firm grip on equilibrium analysis,

因為他們選擇 0 或 1

because they're picking zero or one.

But they lose, right?

但是他們輸了，對吧？

Because picking a number that low is actually a bad choice

因為如果其他人不懂均衡理論

選擇低數值就不是個好策略

if other people aren't doing equilibrium analysis as well.

So they're smart, but poor.

所以他們聰明卻也貧窮

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Where are these things happening in the brain?

那大腦中發生了什麼事呢？

柯里切利和納格爾 的一項研究給了明顯、有趣的答案

One study by Coricelli and Nagel gives a really sharp, interesting answer.

They had people play this game while they were being scanned in an fMRI,

他們讓一些人玩這遊戲時

同時接受功能型核磁共振（fMRI）

and two conditions:

包含兩種狀況：在其中一組

in some trials, they're told,

受試者被告知他們是

"You're playing another person who's playing right now.

和遊戲中的人玩 而我們最後會比較你們的作為

We'll match up your behavior at the end and pay you if you win."

如果你贏了，就會得到獎勵

另外一組受試者 被告知他們是在電腦玩

In other trials, they're told, "You're playing a computer,

受試者隨機分組

they're just choosing randomly."

所以你們可以看到

So what you see here is a subtraction of areas

當和對電腦玩的人比較時

in which there's more brain activity when you're playing people

對手是人的受試者 腦部活化程度較高

compared to playing the computer.

And you see activity in some regions we've seen today,

從圖上你可以看到 一些我們已知的區域

內側額葉皮層，事實上 在這裡的是背內側額葉皮層

medial prefrontal cortex, dorsomedial, up here,

ventromedial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate,

腹內前側額葉皮層

和像是你在玩「老師說」遊戲時

an area that's involved in lots of types of conflict resolution,

處理大量衝突解決的前扣帶皮層

like if you're playing "Simon Says,"

以及左右邊的躡頂葉交界區

and also the right and left temporoparietal junction.

And these are all areas which are fairly reliably known to be

而這皆我們所熟知的區域

被納入一個名為「心靈原理」迴路

part of what's called a "theory of mind" circuit

或稱為「心靈迴路」的一部份

or "mentalizing circuit."

That is, it's a circuit that's used to imagine what other people might do.

這迴路是用來想像別人可能的行動

These were some of the first studies to see this tied in to game theory.

所以這部份早期的研究

和賽局理論有關

What happens with these one- and two-step types?

但那些「想一步」和 「想兩步」的玩家又是如何呢？

所以我們將受試者依其選擇區分

So, we classify people by what they picked,

然後我們再看看

and then we look at the difference between playing humans versus computers,

對手是人或電腦

which brain areas are differentially active.

在腦部活化區域層面的不同

On the top, you see the one-step players.

上方你可以看到「想一步」的玩家

它們幾乎沒有不同

There's almost no difference.

原因是他們將人視為電腦， 所以大腦也就如此反應

The reason is, they're treating other people like a computer,

你可從下方玩家中 看到背內側額葉皮層的活動

and the brain is too.

The bottom players, you see all the activity in dorsomedial PFC.

所以我們知道這些 「想兩步」的玩家有些不同

So we know the two-step players are doing something differently.

你可能會停下來想想 「我們從這些資訊中得到什麼？」

Now, what can we do with this information?

你可能從大腦活動中判斷

You might be able to look at brain activity and say,

「這人會成為撲克牌高手」

"This person will be a good poker player," or "This person's socially naive."

或「這人是交際新手」

既然我們知道這個迴路的存在

We might also be able to study things like development of adolescent brains

我們也可以研究一些

像是青少年腦部的發育

once we have an idea of where this circuitry exists.

準備好囉

OK. Get ready.

I'm saving you some brain activity,

我為你們準備了些腦力激盪

because you don't need to use your hair detector cells.

你們不用擔心想太多會掉頭髮

You should use those cells to think carefully about this game.

你們應該專注思考這個遊戲

這是個協商遊戲

This is a bargaining game.

Two players who are being scanned using EEG electrodes

兩位被接上腦電波圖（EEG） 電極的玩家

are going to bargain over one to six dollars.

正在進行一項由 1 到 6 元的協商

If they can do it in 10 seconds, they'll earn that money.

如果在 10 秒內完成， 最後就會得到這份金錢

如果未在 10 秒內完成協商，就得不到錢

If 10 seconds go by and they haven't made a deal, they get nothing.

這是種兩人一起造成的錯誤

That's kind of a mistake together.

The twist is that one player, on the left,

不同的地方在於左邊玩家

is informed about how much on each trial there is.

確實知道每場協商的底價

They play lots of trials with different amounts each time.

而他們會重複多次、 所包含的金額不同的協商

In this case, they know there's four dollars.

在這個例子中，他們知道是 4 元

The uninformed player doesn't know, but they know the informed player knows.

而一邊玩家不知道底價

只知到他們的對手知道

So the uninformed player's challenge is to say,

所以不知道底價的玩家會質疑

"Is this guy being fair,

「對方真的很公平

or are they giving me a very low offer

或是他只給我很低的金額

in order to get me to think there's only one or two dollars available to split?"

讓我以為我們真的 只有 1、2 塊錢可以分 ？」

如此他們可能會拒絕對方， 而讓協議流產

in which case they might reject it and not come to a deal.

所以這包含「想要的到最多的錢」

So there's some tension here between trying to get the most money

和「如何促使對手給你更多錢」的衝突

but trying to goad the other player into giving you more.

他們議價方式是

And the way they bargain is to point on a number line

是從 0 到 6 這條線上指出一點

that goes from zero to six dollars.

他們是在協商「不知情玩家」該得多少

They're bargaining over how much the uninformed player gets,

而「知情玩家」會得到剩下的

and the informed player will get the rest.

這就好像顧主和勞工的協商

So this is like a management-labor negotiation

勞工不知道

in which the workers don't know

how much profits the privately held company has,

公司獲利經額的資訊

and they want to maybe hold out for more money,

他們想要得到更多的錢

but the company might want to create the impression

但是公司會想營造一個假象

就是營收很少而且 「我已將能給的部份都給出去了」

that there's very little to split: "I'm giving the most I can."

首先看看行為， 一部份玩家座在長桌上、面對面協商

First, some behavior: a bunch of the subject pairs play face-to-face.

We have other data where they play across computers.

我們也有一些 他們透過電腦協商的數據

你可以想像 兩者的差距十分有趣

That's an interesting difference, as you might imagine.

長桌上面對面的協商

But a bunch of the face-to-face pairs

會同意每次都均分金錢

agree to divide the money evenly every single time.

無聊死了！ 平均分配並不有趣

Boring. It's just not interesting neurally.

這對他們很好，因為他們拿到很多錢

It's good for them -- they make a lot of money.

But we're interested in:

我們感興趣的是

Can we say something about when disagreements occur versus don't occur?

如何解釋歧見是否發生

So this is the other group of subjects, who often disagree.

這是通常都達不成協議的一組

他們有機會因歧見而爭執

They bicker and disagree and end up with less money.

最後得到很少錢

They might be eligible to be on "Real Housewives," the TV show.

他們協商情景 甚至可以改編成實境秀

(Laughter)

你看左側

You see on the left,

when the amount to divide is one, two or three dollars,

當配額為 1 到 3 元時

they disagree about half the time;

他們約有 50% 會拒絕

when it's four, five, six, they agree quite often.

而當配額為 4 到 6 元則會接受

This turns out to be something that's predicted

這就是我們所預期的

by a very complicated type of game theory

非常複雜的賽局理論

you should come to graduate school at CalTech and learn about.

你應該到加州理工的研究所來學學

現在要解釋這太困難了

It's a little too complicated to explain right now,

但這理論預期會出現這種趨勢

but the theory tells you that this shape should occur.

而你的直覺或許也是這樣告訴你

Your intuition might tell you that, too.

Now I'm going to show you the results from the EEG recording.

現在我要給你們 看腦電波圖（EEG）的紀錄

這非常複雜 右邊的腦部模型

Very complicated.

The right brain schematic is the uninformed person,

是代表「不知情玩家」 而左邊則是「知情玩家」

and the left is the informed.

記得我們是同時監控兩個大腦

Remember that we scanned both brains at the same time,

so we can ask about time-synced activity

所以我們可以探討 在相同或相異大腦區域中

在一段時間內的活化狀況

in similar or different areas simultaneously,

就像你想研究一段對話

just like if you wanted to study a conversation,

and you were scanning two people talking to each other.

你就同時掃描兩個人的腦部活動

而你會預期當他們正在對話時

You'd expect common activity in language regions

共同活化的是語言區

when they're listening and communicating.

所以這個箭頭連接了同時活化的區域

So the arrows connect regions that are active at the same time.

而箭號方向從

The direction of the arrows

flows from the region that's active first in time,

最先活化的區位指出去

and the arrowhead goes to the region that's active later.

箭頭部份表示較後期活化的區域

在這個例子中，如果你仔細看

So in this case, if you look carefully,

most of the arrows flow from right to left.

大部份的箭號是由右而左

看起來「不知情玩家」的

That is, it looks as if the uninformed brain activity

is happening first,

腦部較先活化

and then it's followed by activity in the informed brain.

接著才是「知情玩家」

順帶一提， 這是在達成協議的測試中出現的

And by the way, these are trials where their deals were made.

This is from the first two seconds.

這是最初兩秒鐘所得到的數據

We haven't finished analyzing this data, so we're still peeking in,

我們還沒完成這部份的分析

所以這只是大概觀察到的狀況

but the hope is that we can say something in the first couple of seconds

但我們希望從前 1、2 秒鐘

about whether they'll make a deal or not,

就可以判斷他們是否能達成協議

which could be very useful in thinking about avoiding litigation

這可以用在避免 協商破裂，而走向進訴訟程序

例如：最後以不愉快的離婚收場

and ugly divorces and things like that.

在很多案例中

Those are all cases in which a lot of value is lost by delay and strikes.

是因為延誤和罷工而減損的價值

Here's the case where the disagreements occur.

而這都是因為歧見

You can see it looks different than the one before.

你會看到這和前一個例子不同

上面有很箭號

There's a lot more arrows.

That means that the brains are synced up more closely

這表示大腦正在同步運作

更確切的說是同時間的活動

in terms of simultaneous activity,

and the arrows flow clearly from left to right.

而箭號由左指向右

這好像是「知情玩家」的大腦開使思考

That is, the informed brain seems to be deciding,

「這個可能是失敗的協商」的訊號

"We're probably not going to make a deal here."

And then later, there's activity in the uninformed brain.

後來這個活化模式也出現在「不知情玩家」

Next, I'm going to introduce you to some relatives.

接著讓我來介紹我們的近親

牠們多毛、體味重、迅捷和強壯

They're hairy, smelly, fast and strong.

You might be thinking back to your last Thanksgiving.

你可能會想到你上個感恩節的裝扮

(Laughter)

Maybe, if you had a chimpanzee with you.

如果你帶了知黑猩猩的話

Charles Darwin and I and you broke off from the family tree from chimpanzees

查理．達爾文、你和我在 50 萬年前

從演化樹上和黑猩猩分開

about five million years ago.

They're still our closest genetic kin.

遺傳上，是牠們仍是最接近我們的親戚

We share 98.8 percent of the genes.

我們之間有 98.8 % 相同的基因

We share more genes with them than zebras do with horses.

我們之間的共同基因 比斑馬和野馬間多的多

And we're also their closest cousin.

我們也是牠們最接近的親戚

They have more genetic relation to us than to gorillas.

牠們和我們的基因相似度 比和大猩猩更接近

So, how humans and chimpanzees behave differently

所以人類和黑猩猩行為的不同

might tell us a lot about brain evolution.

可能提供我們瞭解腦部演化的線索

This is an amazing memory test

這是日本名古屋靈長類研究中心

from [Kyoto], Japan, the Primate Research Institute,

一個令人驚歎的記憶測試

where they've done a lot of this research.

他們在那裡做了很多類似的研究

This goes back a ways. They're interested in working memory.

這已經是早期的研究， 他們對記憶形成很有興趣

猩猩會有 200 毫秒的時間

The chimp will see, watch carefully,

仔細去看

they'll see 200 milliseconds' exposure -- that's fast, eight movie frames --

—— 這是很快的 8 個字卡 ——

of numbers one, two, three, four, five.

數字從 1 到 5

Then they disappear and are replaced by squares,

當字卡消失後會出現方塊

and they have to press the squares

牠們必須依據數字大小順序

that correspond to the numbers from low to high

按壓方塊

to get an apple reward.

正確就能得到蘋果

讓我們看看牠們表現如何

Let's see how they can do it.

This is a young chimp.

這是隻年輕的黑猩猩

The young ones are better than the old ones, just like humans.

像人類一樣 年輕的表現比年老的好

(Laughter)

而且牠們已經做了幾千次了

And they're highly experienced,

可以說是駕輕就熟

they've done this thousands of times.

你可以想像有很大一部份歸於訓練

Obviously there's a big training effect, as you can imagine.

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

You can see they're very blasé and effortless.

你可以看到牠們 已經呈現玩膩時倦怠

Not only can they do it very well, they do it in a sort of lazy way.

他們不只做的很好 而且是用一種慵懶的方式完成

(Laughter)

Who thinks you could beat the chimps?

對嗎？誰認為自己可以打敗這些猩猩呢？

(Laughter)

Wrong. (Laughter)

錯了 （笑聲）

We can try. We'll try. Maybe we'll try.

我們可以嘗試 或許我們真的會試試

OK, so the next part of the study I'm going to go quickly through

好的，這研究的另一部份

我會很快的帶過

is based on an idea of Tetsuro Matsuzawa.

這是基於松澤綱野的想法

He had a bold idea he called the "cognitive trade-off hypothesis."

他有一個想法 稱為認知妥協假說

我們知道猩猩迅捷且強壯

We know chimps are faster and stronger; they're also obsessed with status.

牠們也對自身狀況非常執著

他認為，或許黑猩猩保留了

His thought was, maybe they've preserved brain activities

對牠們非常重要

and practice them in development

that are really, really important to them to negotiate status and to win,

用來協商條件和獲勝的腦部活動

並在成長過程中練習

which is something like strategic thinking during competition.

這就像是在競爭中的策略思考

So we're going to check that out

所以我們接著就去證實它

by having the chimps actually play a game

藉由讓黑猩猩玩個遊戲

by touching two touch screens.

藉由點擊兩個觸控螢幕

The chimps are interacting with each other through the computers.

猩猩真的可以借由電腦互相交流

他們可以選擇按「左」或「右」

They'll press left or right.

One chimp is called a matcher; they win if they press left-left,

其中一隻猩猩作為「協調者」

在兩隻猩猩都選同一邊時獲勝

like a seeker finding someone in hide-and-seek, or right-right.

有點像是在玩捉迷藏

The mismatcher wants to mismatch;

「不諧調者」希望不一樣的組合

牠們希望選擇和對手不同的選項

they want to press the opposite screen of the chimp.

And the rewards are apple cube rewards.

而得到蘋果塊的獎賞

So here's how game theorists look at these data.

賽局理論學家是這樣看待這些數據的

This is a graph of the percentage of times

這圖的 X 軸表示

the matcher picked right on the x-axis

「協調者」選擇「右」的比率

and the percentage of times they picked right

而 Ｙ 軸表示

是牠們預測「不諧調者」會選「右」的比例

by the mismatcher on the y-axis.

So a point here is the behavior by a pair of players,

所以上面的一點是由 兩位玩家共同決定的

one trying to match, one trying to mismatch.

一個試著選擇一樣， 另一個希望有不同組合

The NE square in the middle -- actually, NE, CH and QRE --

這個中間標示 NE 的正方形， 事實上包含 NE 、 CH 、 QRE

those are three different theories of Nash equilibrium and others,

代表三種包含 納許均衡理論在內的三個理論

對於牠們選擇的預測

tells you what the theory predicts,

which is that they should match 50-50,

牠們的選擇應該是 50 比 50

because if you play left too much, for example,

因為如果你選了太多左邊

I can exploit that if I'm the mismatcher by then playing right.

而我是「不諧調者」， 我就會傾向選右邊進行破壞

And as you can see, the chimps -- each chimp is one triangle --

如你們所見， 每隻黑猩猩都以三角形表示

are circled around, hovering around that prediction.

三角形都坐落在預測位置的附近

然後我們改變獎勵條件

Now we move the payoffs.

We're going to make the left-left payoff for the matcher a little higher.

我們要讓選擇「左」的 「協調者」獲得比較高的獎勵

Now they get three apple cubes.

現在牠們會得到三個蘋果塊

Game theoretically, that should make the mismatcher's behavior shift:

依據賽局理論 這會讓「不諧調者」行為改變

因為「不諧調者」會想

the mismatcher will think, "Oh, this guy's going to go for the big reward,

牠的對手會選則獲利大的地方

所以我要選「右」，讓牠拿不到

so I'll go to the right, make sure he doesn't get it."

而你們可以看到牠們的行為

And as you can see, their behavior moves up

逐漸趨向納許均衡的預測

in the direction of this change in the Nash equilibrium.

Finally, we changed the payoffs one more time.

最後，我們再次改變獎勵條件

Now it's four apple cubes,

現在是四個蘋果塊

and their behavior again moves towards the Nash equilibrium.

他們的行為會更接近納許平衡

如果將所有黑猩猩的選擇平均 會出現一個高峰

It's sprinkled around, but if you average the chimps out,

它們會非常接近，間距在 0.1 之內

they're really close, within .01.

結果會比我們觀察的 任何一種物種都接近

They're actually closer than any species we've observed.

What about humans? You think you're smarter than a chimpanzee?

那人類又會如何呢？ 你們認為人類比黑猩猩聰明？

這裡用藍、綠色表示兩組人類

Here's two human groups in green and blue.

他們選擇接近 50 比 50， 但對獎勵的反應和納許平衡相距較遠

They're closer to 50-50; they're not responding to payoffs as closely.

And also if you study their learning in the game,

而且你如果研究 他們在遊戲中學習的能力

他們對之前獲得的獎勵較不敏感

they aren't as sensitive to previous rewards.

黑猩猩玩得比人類好

The chimps play better than the humans, in terms of adhering to game theory.

是以接近賽局理論而言的好

而這兩組分別來自日本和非洲的人

And these are two different groups of humans, from Japan and Africa;

他們的結果相互吻合

they replicate quite nicely.

但都不及黑猩猩

None of them are close to where the chimps are.

所以今天我們學到了一些事情

So, some things we learned:

people seem to do a limited amount of strategic thinking using theory of mind.

從大腦理論的角度

人類的策略思考似乎是有極限的

We have preliminary evidence from bargaining

我們有些從議價得到的初步證據

that early warning signs in the brain might be used to predict

有些大腦活動可以作為

可能造成協商破裂虧損的警訊

whether there'll be a bad disagreement that costs money,

從賽局理論看來

and chimps are "better" competitors than humans,

黑猩猩是比人類更好的競爭者

as judged by game theory.

Thank you.

謝謝大家

(Applause)

（掌聲）