经典TED演讲：我们是否主宰自己的决定？

经典TED演讲：我们是否主宰自己的决定？

　　I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. Not yours, of course -- other people's. (Laughter)

　　今天我想谈谈非理性行为。 我当然不是指你们的非理性行为，是其他人的。 (笑声)

　　So after being at MIT for a few years, I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting. You know, I don't know how many of those you read, but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write -- even worse to write. So I decided to try and write something more fun. And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook. And the title for my cookbook was going to be "Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink." (Laughter) And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen. And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen. You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting. And I wrote a couple of chapters. And I took it to MIT press and they said, "Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else." I tried other people and everybody said the same thing, "Cute. Not for us."

　　在MIT (麻省理工学院)待了几年之后， 我发觉写学术论文并不怎样叫人兴奋。 我不知道有多少学术论文会有人看, 不过读学术文章并不十分有趣，很多时写学术文章也没有什么趣味， 其实写比读更糟。 所以我决定写一些较好玩的东西。 我有一个主意——我想写一本烹饪书。 这本烹饪书的名字将会是 “没有碎屑的晚餐：在洗碗糟上吃饭的艺术” (笑声) 这本书会从厨房看人生。 这个计划令我很兴奋， 我打算在这本书里一方面写研究，一方面写厨房。 你知啦，我们在厨房做那么多的事，我想这本书会很有趣。 于是我写了几个章， 跟着把书拿到MIT出版社， 但他们说： “很有趣，不过不适合我们， 你找其他人吧。” 我又把书拿给其他人看，但他们说的全都一样： “很有趣，不过不适合我们。”

　　Until somebody said, "Look, if you're serious about this, you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something, and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else. If you really want to do it you have to do it." So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research. I do this all day long. I want to write something else. Something a bit more free, less constrained." And this person was very forceful and said, "Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it." So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- " I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook." So I wrote a book on my research.

　　最后有人说： “看，如果你是认真的话， 你必须先写一本关于你的研究的书 ，你一定要发表什么， 才会得到写其他东西的机会。 如果你真的要出版这本书，就一定得这样做。” 我说：“我真的不想写跟我的研究有关的书， 我一整天都做研究，我想写一些其他的东西， 一些比较自由，不那么拘紧的东西。” 这个人很坚定地说： “如果你要达到目的，这是唯一的方法。” 于是我说：“好吧，如果真的一定要这样做——” 我有一个学术休假，我对自己说: “如果没有其他方法， 我只好先写我的研究，然后再写我的烹饪书。” 于是我写了一本关于我的研究的书。

　　And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways. First of all, I enjoyed writing. But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people. It's a fantastic time to write, because there is so much feedback you can get from people. People write me about their personal experience, and about their examples, and what they disagree, and nuances. And even being here -- I mean the last few days, I've known really heights of obsessive behavior I never thought about. (Laughter) Which I think is just fascinating.

　　写完后，我发觉其实写这本书也挺有趣。 这可以分开两方面来说。 首先，我喜欢写作， 但更有趣的是， 我开始向其他人学习。 写作的过程很棒， 因为有许多人给你回应。 他们给我写自己的个人经历， 告诉我他们的例子，和不同意我的地方， 还有很多精细的见解。 也就是在这儿，我是指过去几天， 我才见识到人们对事物着迷 竟然可以达到那种程度， (笑声) 使我大开眼界。

　　I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion as a metaphor for rationality. So think about these two tables. And you must have seen this illusion. If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left, or the horizontal line on the table on the right? Which one seems longer? Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer? No, right? It's impossible. But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes. So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help. I can animate the lines. And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines, which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you. Now, the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away, it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute. (Laughter) You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is." Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer. Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way. And there is almost nothing we can do about it, aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it.

　　让我们谈谈非理性行为。 首先我想你们看看几个视觉错觉的例子， 作为理性错觉的一个比喻。 请看看这两张台子， 你一定见过这个错觉。 如果我问你，左边桌子的垂直长度较长， 还是右边桌子的水平长度较长? 那一条线看来比较长? 是不是每个人都看见左边那条线较长， 有没有看到别的? 没有人看到别的，对不对?没有可能看到别的。 视觉错觉的美妙之处，是我们很容易证明错误。 我可以加一些线在这里，不过没有什么用处。 我可以移动这些线， 只要你相信我没有缩短它们， 而我确实没有，我就能证明你们的眼睛欺骗了你。 视觉错觉的有趣之处， 是如果我把这些线移走， 那便好像你在刚才一分钟什么也没有学到。 (笑声) 你不能看着这图说，“哦，我现在看到真实的图像了。” 对不对?要克服这个错觉是不可能的， 我们还是觉得这条线较长。 我们的直觉总是重复地，可预测地，屡试不爽地欺骗我们， 而我们却几乎没有什么办法， 只能拿一把尺量一量仅此而已。

　　Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions. What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to? Brown. Thank you. The bottom one? Yellow. Turns out they're identical. Can anybody see them as identical? Very very hard. I can cover the rest of the cube up. And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical. And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical. But again it's the same story that if we take the background away, the illusion comes back. Right. There is no way for us not to see this illusion. I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that. I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor.

　　这是另一个例子。是我最喜欢的视觉错觉之一。 你见到上方箭头指着的是什么颜色? 棕色，谢谢你。 下面这个呢?黄色。 其实它们是完全一样的。 有人看见它们是一样的吗? 非常非常难。 我可以把方块的其他部分盖住， 如果我把方块其他部分盖住，你可以看见它们其实是一样的。 如果你不相信我， 一会儿你可以向我要投影片， 把图像剪剪贴贴，看他们是否真的一样。 不过，跟第一个例子一样， 只要我们把背景除掉， 我们的错觉又回来了，对不对? 我们没有办法不受这个错觉影响。 或者如果有人是色盲的话，才可能会看不到。 我想大家把视觉错觉看成一个比喻。

　　Vision is one of the best things we do. We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision -- bigger than dedicated to anything else. We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else. And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision. And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision, which we're so good at, what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes in something we're not as good at -- for example, financial decision making: (Laughter) something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain, and we don't do that many hours of the day. And the argument is in those cases it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes and, worse, not have an easy way to see them. Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes; in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder to demonstrate to people the mistakes.

　　视觉是我们最出色的能力之一， 我们大脑的很大部分是专用于视力的， 比用作其他能力的部分都大。 我们一天里运用视觉的时数，要比用在其他事情的时数多。 人类的进化使我们长于视力。 如果我们的视觉也有这些可预测的，可重复的错误， 而视觉是我们最优秀的能力之一， 至于我们不那么优秀的能力， 我们不会犯更多错误的机会又有多少? 举一个例子，我们金融决策的订定。 (笑声) 一些我们没有一个演化原因会做得好的事情; 一些在大脑中没有专责部分处理的事情; 一些我们在一天里，不是花那么多时间做的事情。 我们要问的，就是在这些事情上 我们会否犯上更多的错误。 更糟的是，要认识到这些错误并不容易。 在视觉错觉上，我们很容易证明错误; 可是要向人们证明他们认知上的错觉， 却非常艰难。

　　So I want to show you some cognitive illusions, or decision-making illusions, in the same way. And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences. It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein. And it basically shows the percentage of people who indicated they would be interested in giving their organs to donation. And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically see two types of countries: countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot; and countries on the left that seem to giving very little, or much less. The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little?

　　所以我想让大家看一些认知错觉的例子， 和人们做决定时， 与认知误差有关的错觉。 这是我在社会科学中，最喜爱的图表之一。 取自Johnson 和Goldstein 的一篇文章。 图表基本上显示 表示有兴趣捐赠器官人士 的百分比。 这些是欧洲的各个国家。基本上 你可以见到两类国家： 右边的国家很多人表示愿意捐赠器官， 而左边的国家就很少人愿意， 比右边少得多。 问题时，为什么有些国家有那么多人愿意捐赠器官， 而有些国家愿意的人是那么少?

　　When you ask people this question, they usually think that it has to be something about culture. Right? How much do you care about people? Giving your organs to somebody else is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are. Or maybe it is about religion. But, if you look at this plot, you can see that countries that we think about as very similar actually exhibit very different behavior. For example, Sweden is all the way on the right, and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar, is all the way on the left. Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right. The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right. And finally, depending on your particular version of European similarity, you can think about the U.K and France as either similar culturally or not. But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different.

　　如果你问别人这个问题， 他们多数都会以为和文化有关。 对不对?你有多关心其他人? 捐赠器官给其他人， 大概跟一个人是否关心社会，和其他人的关系有多密切有关， 又或者和宗教有关。 不过，如果你看看这个图表， 你会看到，我们以为很相似的国家， 实际上却表现出非常不同的行为。 例如，瑞典在图表的最右方， 但我们认为和瑞典很相近的丹麦， 却在图表的最左方; 德国在左方，但奥地利却在右方; 荷兰在左方，而比利时就在右方; 最后，视乎你对欧洲各国 的相近性的看法， 你可能会以为英国和法国的文化是互相接近或者不同， 不过，就器官捐赠比例来说，他们却显著不同。

　　By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story. You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group. Turns out that they got to 28 percent after mailing every household in the country a letter begging people to join this organ donation program. You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"? It's 28 percent in organ donation.

　　顺便说说，关于荷兰有一个有趣的故事。 你可以看到，荷兰是少人捐赠器官的国家之中比例最高的。 真相是，有百分之二十八的人 在收到一封寄到全国每一户的信， 恳求人们参加器官捐赠计划以后， 表示愿意这么做。 你听过一句话没有：“乞求不会有什么好效果。” 在器官捐赠上，就只能达到百分之二十八。

　　(Laughter)

　　(笑声)

　　But whatever the countries on the right are doing they are doing a much better job than begging. So what are they doing? Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV. And here is the story. The countries on the left have a form at the DMV that looks something like this. Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program. And what happens? People don't check, and they don't join. The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot, have a slightly different form. It says check the box below if you don't want to participate. Interestingly enough, when people get this, they again don't check -- but now they join.

　　反之，无论右方的国家做了什么， 他们的成效都比乞求人们好。 那究竟这些国家做了什么? 原来他们的秘密，在于汽车登记处的一张表格。 这便是他们所做的。 在图表左方的国家，汽车登记处的表格包括了 这个部分： 愿意参加器官捐赠计划者， 请在方格打勾。 结果怎么样? 多数人没有打勾，他们没有参加捐赠计划。 图表右方的国家，那些参加捐赠计划比例很高的国家， 则用了一张不同的表格， 上面写着，不愿意参加器官捐赠计划者，请在方格打勾。 有趣的是，人们拿着这一张表格， 他们也不打勾， 不过这么一来，他们参加了器官捐赠计划。

　　(Laughter)

　　(笑声)

　　Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.

　　让我们想想，这告诉我们什么? 我们早上起来，觉得可以主宰自己的决定， 我们早上起来，打开衣橱， 以为我们可以决定穿什么， 打开冰箱，以为我们可以决定吃什么， 但我们刚才看到的， 是器官捐赠这个决定，很大程度上并不在乎我们， 反而在乎设计表格的人。 当你走进汽车登记处， 设计表格的人将会对你跟着要做的事 产生非常重大的影响。 要知道单凭直觉去找出这些结果非常困难。试想想我们自己， 你们之中有多少人相信， 如果明天你要为你的汽车续牌， 你走进汽车登记处， 拿起这些表格时， 它们真的可以改变你的行为? 要相信它们会影响我们非常困难。 我们会说，“噢，那些奇怪的欧洲人，他们当然会受到影响。” 不过如果是我们的话， 我们总是觉得，我们才是坐在驾驶席的那个人， 我们总是觉得，一切在我们掌握之中， 我们主宰自己的决定。 我们很难接受 我们做决定只是一种错觉， 实质上决定并不是我们做的。

　　Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.

　　可能你会说， “这些都是我们不在意的决定。” 事实上，按照定义，这些决定只是 跟我们死后的事情有关， 有什么事情， 比我们死后的事情更无关重要? 所以一个典型的经济学家、一个相信人是理性的人会说， “你知道吗?提起铅笔打一个勾所付出的代价， 要比做这个决定 可能带来的利益大。" 这就是为什么我们得到这个结果。 不过，事实上，人们这样做并不是因为这个决定太容易， 不是因为这个决定不重要，不是因为我们不在意。 刚好相反，人们这样做是因为我们在意， 因为这个决定既困难又复杂。 这个决定太复杂，以致我们不知道该做什么， 我们不知道该怎么做， 于是我们挑了别人预先为我们选的， 不管哪是什么。

　　I'll give you one more example for this. This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer. And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts, people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions, do it a lot." And they basically took a group of physicians. And they presented to them a case study of a patient. Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer. He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while. And then they said to the physician, "You decided a few weeks ago that nothing is working for this patient. All these medications, nothing seems to be working. So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy. Hip replacement. Okay?" So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced. And then they said to half the physicians, they said, "Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case and you realized that you forgot to try one medication. You did not try ibuprofen. What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen? Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?" Well the good news is that most physicians in this case decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen. Very good for the physicians.

　　让我多给你一个例子。 这个例子取自Redelmeier 和Schaefer 的一篇文章。 他们说：“这种现象也一样影响专家， 高薪人士、专家做决定时， 也常常受到错觉的影响。” 简单来说，Redelmeier 和Schaefer找来一班医生， 告诉他们一个病人的个案。 病者是一个农夫，六十七岁， 右髖骨已经疼了一段时期。 接着他们对这班医生说， 几星期前，你决定 已经没有什么疗法对这个病人有效， 所有药物似乎都没有效果， 所以你决定转介病人 接受髖关节置换手术。 所以，这个病人已经开始轮候置换髖关节。 跟着他们对其中一半的医生说： 你昨天再详阅病人的个案， 发现忘了试一种药物， 你还没有试 ibuprofen(镇痛消炎药)。 你会怎么做呢?你会不会召回病人，把ibuprofen 开给他试试? 还是让他继续轮候髖关节手术? 好消息是，大部分医生都决定 把病人召回，让他试试 ibuprofen。 我们都很高兴医生这样做。

　　The other group of the physicians, they said, "Yesterday when you reviewed the case you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet, ibuprofen and piroxicam." And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do? You let them go. Or you pull them back. And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?" Now think of it. This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement. But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex. There is one more decision. What happens now? Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go to hip replacement. I hope this worries you, by the way -- (Laughter) when you go to see your physician. The thing is is that no physician would ever say, "Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement." But the moment you set this as the default it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing.

　　至于另一组医生，研究人员对他们说， “你昨天再详阅病人的个案， 发现还没有试两种药物， 就是ibuprofen和piroxicam。” 研究人员说：“你还有两种药物没有试，你会怎么做? 你会让病人继续轮候做手术， 还是叫他回来? 如果你叫他回来，你会先试ibuprofen 还是 piroxicam? 试想想，这个决定可以很容易， 就是让病人继续轮候髖关节置换手术。 不过如果叫他们回来，突然间决定就变得比较复杂， 因为还有一个决定要做。 结果是怎么样呢? 大部分医生决定让病人继续轮候做手术， 把髖关节换掉。 我希望这个例子会使你关注， (笑声) 当你下次去见医生的时候。 问题时，没有一个医生会说： “Piroxicam，ibuprofen 和髖关节置换手术三者之间， 就选择髖关节置换手术吧。 不过，一旦你把它设定作为先决的选择， 便会对人们最后的决定，产生巨大的影响力。

　　I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making. Imagine I give you a choice. Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome? All expenses paid: hotel, transportation, food, breakfast, a continental breakfast, everything. Or a weekend in Paris? Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things; they have different food, different culture, different art. Now imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted. Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome, a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?" (Laughter) It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen, in this set, influence anything? (Laughter) But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this. What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid, transportation, breakfast, but doesn't include coffee in the morning. If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50. Now in some ways, given that you can have Rome with coffee, why would you possibly want Rome without coffee? It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option. But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee, Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it. The fact that you have Rome without coffee makes Rome with coffee look superior, and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris. (Laughter)

　　让我多举几个例子，证明我们的决定可以是不理性的。 如果我给你一个选择， 你可以选到罗马度周末， 费用全免， 包括酒店、交通、膳食、早餐， 欧陆早餐等一切费用; 或者到巴黎度周末。 请想想，到巴黎度周末，跟到罗马度周末，是两码子的事。 它们有不同的食物、不同的文化、不同的艺术。 如果我在这两者之间， 加上一个没有人喜欢的选择， 如果我说：“你喜欢到罗马度周末， 到巴黎度周末，还是被人偷车?“ (笑声) 这是一个可笑的主意，加上“被人偷车”这个选择， 能对最后决定有什么影响? (笑声) 不过如果这个额外的选择， 并不是“被人偷车”那又如何? 如果这个额外的选择，是到罗马度周末，费用全免， 包括交通、早餐， 但不包括早晨的咖啡。 你要咖啡，便要自掏腰包，付两欧元的价钱。 在某程度来说， 既然你可以到”罗马包咖啡”， 有谁会选择“到罗马不包咖啡”呢? 就好像“被人偷车”一样，那是一个次等的选择。 你猜猜结果怎麽样?结果是，你一加上“到罗马不包咖啡”这个选择， “到罗马包咖啡”就变得较吸引，变成人们的选择。 “到罗马不包咖啡”这个选择 令人觉得“到罗马包咖啡”这个选择比其他好， 不单比“到罗马不包咖啡”好，甚至比到巴黎好。 (笑声)

　　Here are two examples of this principle. This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago that gave us three choices. An online subscription for 59 dollars. A print subscription for 125. Or you could get both for 125. (Laughter) Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist. And I tried to figure out what were they thinking. And they passed me from one person to another to another, until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website. And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on. The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation.

　　关于这个原则我还有两个例子。 这是“经济学人”杂志几年前的一则广告， 他给你三个选择： 以五十九元订阅“经济学人”网上版; 以一百二十五元订阅印刷版; 或是以一百二十五元同时订阅印刷版和网上版。 (笑声) 见到这则广告后，我致电“经济学人”， 我想知道他们是怎样想的。 他们把我从一个人交到另一个人再交到另一个人， 最后我被转到网页的负责人， 于是我打电话给他们，他们又说要去转问其他人。 接着我所知道的，是广告很快便消失了，没有什么解释。

　　So I decided to do the experiment that I would have loved The Economist to do with me. I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students. I said, "What would you choose?" These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal. Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option. That means our students can read. (Laughter) But now if you have an option that nobody wants, you can take it off. Right? So I printed another version of this, where I eliminated the middle option. I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens. Now the most popular option became the least popular. And the least popular became the most popular.

　　我于是决定自己进行 这个我本来打算和经济学人一起做的实验。 我把广告给一百个MIT 个学生看， 我说，“你会怎么选?” 这是各个选择的占有率 – 多数人都选择合拼订阅计划。 没有人选择主流的印刷版， 那显示我们学生的阅读能力还不错。 (笑声) 不过既然有一个选择完全没有人选， 我们应该可以把它拿走了吧? 于是我把订阅表格修改了一下， 把第二个选择移走， 再交给另外一百个学生选。结果在这里。 这次最受欢迎的选择变成最不受欢迎， 而最不受欢迎的却变成最受欢迎。

　　What was happening was the option that was useless, in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it. But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, which was get only the print for 125, the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal. And as a consequence, people chose it. The general idea here, by the way, is that we actually don't know our preferences that well. And because we don't know our preferences that well we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces: the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on.

　　我们发现中间那个选择， 因为没有人选它，所以可算是一个没有用的选择， 但事实上它又不是真正没用， 因为它能帮助人们找出他们想要的东西。 事实上，与中间那个选择相比， 即是以一百二十五块净订阅印刷版， 以一百二十五块一并得到印刷版和网上版看来十分划算， 于是，人人都选了它。 这些例子告诉我们， 我们对自己的喜好其实并不那么清楚， 而正因为我们不清楚知道自己的喜好， 我们很容易受到各种外在因素的影响, 例如那个是预设的选择，提供给我们的是那几个选择，等等。

　　One more example of this. People believe that when we deal with physical attraction, we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not, attracted or not. Which is why we have these four-minute dates. So I decided to do this experiment with people. I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people. The experiment was with people. I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry. I said "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?" But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry. I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive. (Laughter) The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom. And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom help their respective, more attractive brothers? The answer was absolutely yes. When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular. When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular.

　　这里还有另一个例子。 一般人相信说到外表吸引力， 只要我们可以见到对方，便可以立即知道自己是否喜欢这个人， 他或她对自己是否有吸引力。 这就是为什么我们有那些四分钟约会。 于是我决定找人做这个实验。 我这里有几个人面的图像 – 他们都不是真人。 再找来一些做这个实验。 我给他们看两幅图像，一幅是Tom, 一幅是Jerry。 我问他们：“你们喜欢跟谁约会，是Tom 还是Jerry?” 不过，对其中一半人，我加上了一个丑化了的Jerry 的图像， 我用Photoshop 加工图像，把Jerry 弄得没有那么具吸引力。 (笑声) 对另外一半人，我加了一个丑化了的 Tom 的图像。 我的问题是，丑化了的 Jerry 和Tom， 会不会教原来的 Jerry 和Tom 变得更具吸引力? 答案是绝对的。 当加上了丑Jerry，原来的Jerry就变得较受欢迎; 当加上了丑Tom，原来的Tom也变得较受欢迎。

　　(Laughter)

　　(笑声)

　　This of course has two very clear implications for life in general. If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you? (Laughter) You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Laughter) Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier. (Laughter) The second point, or course, is that if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you. (Laughter) Now you're getting it.

　　这个结果对于我们日常的生活， 有两个很清楚的启示。 如果你要到酒吧留连，你会跟谁一起去? (笑声) 你会想要一个样子没有你那么帅的伴儿。 (笑声) 和你相似，但比你丑一点儿的。 (笑声) 当然，第二点就是 如果有人请你去酒吧，你就知道他们对你的看法。 (笑声) 你们现在明白了吧。

　　What is the general point? The general point is that when we think about economics we have this beautiful view of human nature. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!" We have this view of ourselves, of others. The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less generous to people. In fact in medical terms, that's our view. (Laughter) But there is a silver lining. The silver lining is, I think, kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting. Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson?

　　这些例子总的来说表明了什么? 在经济学里，对于人的本质 有着很美丽的看法。 “人类是一件多么了不得的杰作!多么高贵的理性!“(选自莎士比亚“王子复仇记”) 我们也是这样看待自己和其他人。 不过，用行为经济学的角度， 对人的看法却没有那么美好， 事实上，借用医学的语言，这便是行为经济学对人的看法。 (笑声) 不过这也未尝没有一点好处， 我认为这点好处， 正是为什么行为经济学是那么有趣和刺激的原因。 我们到底是超人还是 Homer Simpson (美国电视剧的主角，以平凡愚笨见称)?

　　When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use obviously. (Laughter) We understand our limitations, and we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way, we could design a better world. And that, I think, is the hope of this thing.

　　试想我们建设物质世界时， 我们了解自己的限制。 于是我们建设步骤。我们制造了这些东西， 虽然，很明显并不是每个人都懂得使用。 (笑声) 因为我们明白自己的限制， 于是我们环绕着这些限制来建设世界。 可是为着某种缘故，到了思想世界， 当我们设计医疗改革、退休计划或股票市场等事情时， 不知怎地却忘了自己的限制。 我想如果我们明白人类理性的限制， 正如我们明白生理上的限制一样， 虽然它们并不像生理限制那么明显， 那么我们便可以设计一个更美好的世界。 我想这就是行为经济学带个我们的希望。

　　Thank you very much.

　　谢谢大家。