When you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. But evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. And yet in two million years the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, Habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. What is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?
相對二十一分鐘的演講來說， 兩百萬年顯得非常漫長。 但是從進化的角度來看，兩百萬年只是一瞬間。 在兩百萬年中， 大腦腦容量從我們祖先能人的1.25磅， 增大了近三倍成了現在的3磅。 自然給予我們的大腦有什麼特別之處呢？
Well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just get three times bigger, they gain new structures. And one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the frontal lobe. And particularly, a part called the pre-frontal cortex. Now what does a pre-frontal cortex do for you that should justify the entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
當我們的腦量擴大三倍的時候， 大腦不僅僅在體積上有了改變，它在結構上也發生了變化。 我們大腦變大的最大原因就是它有了新的一部分，叫做 額葉。其中尤為重要的是前額葉外皮。 是什麼讓前額葉外皮成 人腦中如此重要的一部分？
Well, it turns out the pre-frontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is that it is an experience simulator. Flight pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes. Human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they try them out in real life. This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. It's a marvelous adaptation. It's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.
腦前額葉外皮有很多功能， 其中最重要的是 它擁有一種創造模擬經驗的功能。 飛行員利用在飛行模擬器中的訓練 來防止在真實飛行中產生失誤。 人類有驚人的適應性， 他們可以在大腦中體驗 未曾真實經歷的東西。 這個技巧是我們的祖先們都不會的， 也沒有任何動物會。 這種適應性真不可思議！ 這一特徵和對生拇指，直立行走以及語言 使我們從樹上 進化到了購物中心。
Now -- (Laughter) -- all of you have done this. I mean, you know, Ben and Jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream. It's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "Yuck." It's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say yuck before you make it.
現在-（笑聲）-我們大家都能做這些。 我的意思是，比如 Ben and Jerry's (一個冰激凌連鎖店）沒有肝和洋蔥口味的冰激淋。 並不是因為他們試做了一下，嚐了嚐，而後"Yuck" （表示噁心）。 而是因為你坐在椅子上 就可以想象肝和洋蔥的口味的冰激淋是怎樣噁心了。
Let's see how your experience simulators are working. Let's just run a quick diagnostic before I proceed with the rest of the talk. Here's two different futures that I invite you to contemplate, and you can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. One of them is winning the lottery. This is about 314 million dollars. And the other is becoming paraplegic. So, just give it a moment of thought. You probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.
讓我們來看看經驗模擬器是如何工作的。 在我繼續我的演說之前讓我們來做一個簡短的試驗。 這裡有兩個不同的未來，我想邀請你們一起來參與。 你可以幻想這兩種未來，看看你更喜歡哪一種。 第一種未來是贏了價值3.14億美元的彩票。 第二種是截癱。 我給你們幾分鐘考慮一下。 你也許覺得根本不用考慮。
Interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. And this is exactly what you expected, isn't it? But these aren't the data. I made these up!
這裡有一些很有趣的數據。這些數據顯示了這兩組人 到底有多快樂。 是不是這正如你們所料？ 可其實這是我胡謅的數據。
These are the data. You failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture Because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy with their lives.
這才是真正的數據。你們都沒有通過突擊測試。這堂課開始還不到5分鐘呢。 事實是，在失去雙腿一年之後， 和在贏了彩票一年之後，中彩票的人和截癱患者 的快樂程度幾乎相同。
Now, don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. The research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, have revealed something really quite startling to us. Something we call the impact bias, which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. For the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.
現在，不要為沒有通過突擊測試而沮喪了。 因為幾乎沒有人能通過這項突擊測試。 我實驗室所做的研究， 還有全國的經濟學家和心理學家所做的研究 顯示了一種讓人吃驚的東西。 我們稱它為影響偏差。 這是指人腦的模擬功能有犯錯誤的傾向。 模擬器會誇大事物的不同結果 而這些結果實際上未必有多麼的不同。
From field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have. In fact, a recent study -- this almost floors me -- a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few exceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.
現場研究和實驗室研究都顯示 選舉的輸贏，伴侶的得失， 提升與否，考試成敗等等， 對我們的影響及影響的時間長短 都比人們想象的少。 事實上，最新的研究幾乎讓我都迷惑了。 最新的研究顯示，發生在三個月以前的 重大的創傷， 除了少數個別例子 對你今日的快樂幾乎沒有影響。
Why? Because happiness can be synthesized. Sir Thomas Brown wrote in 1642, "I am the happiest man alive. I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me." What kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?
這是為什麼？ 因為快樂是可以人工合成的。 托馬斯·布朗在1642年寫到："我是世界上最快樂的人。 我可以將貧窮變為富有，將逆境變為順境。 我比阿奇里斯（Achilles）更無懈可擊，我用不著幸運的眷顧。" 是什麼力量讓他如此強大？
Well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have. Human beings have something that we might think of as a psychological immune system. A system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. Like Sir Thomas, you have this machine. Unlike Sir Thomas, you seem not to know it.
這種力量是我們每個人都有。 人類具有一種心理免疫系統。 這個系統通是一個認知過程，基本上是無意識的認知過程， 這種認知可以改變人們對世界的認識， 讓人們感到自己的生活美好。 像托馬斯爵士一樣，你也具有這樣的能力。 與托馬斯爵士不同的是，你還沒有意識到你有這種能力。
We synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. Now, you don't need me to give you too many examples of people synthesizing happiness, I suspect. Though I'm going to show you some experimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence.
我們都可以自己製造快樂，儘管我們一直以為快樂是一種需要苦苦追尋的東西。 現在，我想你不用我舉太多人們自己合成快樂的例子， 不過我還是想給你們看一下一些實驗證據， 你並不用太費勁地尋求證據。
As a challenge to myself, since I say this once in a while in lectures, I took a copy of the New York Times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. And here are three guys synthesizing happiness. "I am so much better off physically, financially, emotionally,mentally and almost every other way." "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." "I believe it turned out for the best."
我上課時說過要自我挑戰， 因此我隨便拿了一份紐約時報，試著從中尋找人們人工合成快樂的例子。 這裡有三個例子。 "我現在在心理上，經濟上，感情上和精神上各方面都比以前好。" "我沒有一分鐘後悔過。" "這個經歷太榮耀了。""我相信事情向最好的方向發展。"
Who are these characters who are so damn happy? Well, the first one is Jim Wright. Some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the House of Representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. He lost everything. The most powerful Democrat in the country, he lost everything. he lost his money, he lost his power, What does he have to say all these years later about it? "I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." What other way would there be to be better off? Vegetably? Minerally? Animally? He's pretty much covered them there.
誰如此快樂？ 第一位是吉姆·萊特（Jim Wright)。 年紀大一點的人可能記得：他是眾議院主席。 因為一個名叫牛特·金瑞奇（Newt Gingrich）的年輕共和黨黨員 發現了他的一樁黑幕交易事件， 萊特被迫辭職。 他失去了一切。這個在美國最有權的民主黨黨員 失去了一切。 他失去了金錢，權利。 這麼多年後，他是怎麼看待這些的？ "我現在在心理上，經濟上，感情上和精神上等 各方面都比以前好。" 最好還能好成怎樣？ 植物上?礦物上？動物上？他基本上都包括了。
Moreese Bickham is somebody you've never heard of. Moreese Bickham uttered these words upon being released. He was 78 years old. He spent 37 years in a Louisiana State Penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. He was ultimately exonerated, at the age of 78, through DNA evidence. And what did he have to say about his experience? "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." Glorious! This guy is not saying, "Well, you know, there were some nice guys. They had a gym." It's "glorious," a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.
你可能從來沒有聽說過莫里斯·比克漢（Moreese Bickham)。 莫里斯·比克漢出獄後說了這樣的話。 他七十八歲了。 他因為一項錯誤的判決在路易斯安那監獄坐了三十七年牢。 他最終在七十八歲時通過了DNA測驗確認無罪 才被釋放。 他是這樣描繪他的這些經歷的呢？ "我從來沒有一分鐘後悔。這個經歷太榮耀了。" 榮耀！這個人不是在說： "監獄裡有些人還是不錯的。那裡還有一個健身房。" 他說的是"榮耀！" 我們通常專門用這個詞語來形容跟宗教相關的經歷。
Harry S. Langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by these two brothers named McDonalds. And he thought, "That's a really neat idea!" So he went to find them. They said, "We can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks." Harry went back to New York, asked his brother who's an investment banker to loan him the 3,000 dollars, and his brother's immortal words were, "You idiot, nobody eats hamburgers." He wouldn't lend him the money, and of course six months later Ray Croc had exactly the same idea. It turns out people do eat hamburgers, and Ray Croc, for a while, became the richest man in America.
哈里·朗格曼(Harry S Langerman）說了這些。他本可以成為一個家喻戶曉的人物。 在1949年，他在報上看到一篇 關於麥當勞兄弟擁有的一家漢堡小攤的報道。 他立馬想到"這是一個好主意！" 他找到了麥當勞兄弟。他們同意道： "給我們$3000， 我們就讓你開連鎖店。" 哈里回到紐約，向他在投行工作的哥哥 借$3000。 他哥哥勸慰道： "你真是一個傻瓜。沒人會吃漢堡的。" 他沒有借到錢。 6個月之後，瑞·克羅克（Ray Croc）也有了同樣的想法。 結果是人們喜歡吃漢堡， 瑞·克羅克一時成為鉅富。
And then finally -- you know, the best of all possible worlds -- some of you recognize this young photo of Pete Best, who was the original drummer for the Beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up Ringo on a tour. Well, in 1994 when Pete Best was interviewed -- yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician -- he had this to say: "I'm happier than I would have been with the Beatles."
最後， 你們也許會認出年輕的比特·貝斯特（Pete Best), 他是甲殼蟲樂隊早期的一位鼓手。 他們藉故丟下了他， 讓林格(Ringo)入夥。 1994年比特·貝斯特接受採訪的時候， -是的，他還是一名鼓手；是的，他還是一名音樂家 -- 他說到："要是留在甲殼蟲樂隊，我不會這麼快樂。"
Okay. There's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. Here it is, finally to be revealed. First: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it. (Laughter) Second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can. (Laughter) Third: make somebody else really, really rich. (Laughter) And finally: never ever join the Beatles. (Laughter)
好了。我們可以從這些人身上學到很重要的東西。 那是快樂的秘訣。 讓我們總結一下。 一：積聚財富，權利和威望， 然後失去這些東西。（笑聲） 二：把牢底坐穿。 （笑聲）三：讓他人成為鉅富。（笑聲） 最後：千萬別加入甲殼蟲樂隊。（笑聲）
OK. Now I, like Ze Frank, can predict your next thought, which is, "Yeah, right." Because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done, we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, "Yeah right, you never really wanted the job." "Oh yeah, right. You really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the time she threw the engagement ring in your face."
我像澤.法蘭克（Ze Frank）一樣可以猜想到你會想什麼。 你們在想"哦，是吧。" 因為當人們像以上例舉的人一樣去合成快樂時， 我們會衝他們微笑，同時會轉動著眼睛說： "哦，是吧。你從來沒有真正想要那份工作。" "哦，是的，你本來就 和她沒有什麼共同點， 你知道這點時，她也差不多要 把訂婚戒指取下來扔給你。"
We smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call natural happiness. What are these terms? Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. And in our society, we have a strong belief that synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind. Why do we have that belief? Well, it's very simple. What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it?
我們假笑是因為我們相信合成的快樂 比不上天然的快樂。 什麼是天然的快樂和人工合成的快樂？ 天然的快樂是得到我們渴求的東西。 人工合成的快樂則是在得不到我們渴求的東西時，自己製造出來的東西。 現在這個社會堅信 人工合成的快樂是次品。 為什麼人們有這樣的觀點？ 那很簡單。 如果我們都相信得到或得不到自己想要的東西都能一樣快樂， 那經濟引擎還如何高速運轉？
With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, a shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable because they don't want stuff enough. I want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for. Now, I'm a scientist, so I'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.
先讓我向馬修·理查德（Matthieu Ricard）表示歉意， 要是光顧商場的都是和尚， 那麼這些商場豈不是都不賺錢了？ 因為和尚通常都沒有什麼物質需求。 我想告訴你們的是，人工合成的快樂 是真實而持久的。 它和那種因為得到我們渴求的東西 而感受到的快樂一樣。 我是一個科學家。我不光是說一些好聽的結論， 我還要向你們提供一些數據。
Let me first show you an experimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. And this isn't mine. This is a 50-year-old paradigm called the free choice paradigm. It's very simple. You bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked. In this case, because the experiment I'm going to tell you about uses them, these are Monet prints. So, everybody can rank these Monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. Now we give you a choice: "We happen to have some extra prints in the closet. We're going to give you one as your prize to take home. We happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject. This is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.
第一個試驗證據 顯示了普通人的人工合成的快樂。 這不是我的試驗。 這個50年前做的實驗叫做自由選擇。 它很簡單。 你有6件物品。 你讓受試者把這6件物品按照他們的喜愛程度排序。 在這個實驗中 我們用6幅莫奈的畫。 每個人都把畫 按照他們最喜歡的到最不喜歡的排列。 現在我們給你一個選擇。 "我們正好有一些多餘的畫。 我們將把畫作為獎品給你。 我們正好有三號和四號畫。" 這個選擇有點困難， 因為受試者對兩幅畫的喜愛程度相當。 很自然，人們都傾向於選擇三號。 因為他們更喜歡三號。
Sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes, it could be 15 days -- the same stimuli are put before the subject, and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. "Tell us how much you like them now." What happens? Watch as happiness is synthesized. This is the result that has been replicated over and over again. You're watching happiness be synthesized Would you like to see it again? Happiness! "The one I got is really better than I thought! That other one I didn't get sucks!" (Laughter) That's the synthesis of happiness.
過了一段時間之後 - 這可能是15分鐘，也可能是15天。 對同樣的畫， 我們叫受試者對同樣的畫再一次排序。 "告訴我們你現在有多喜歡這些畫了？" 結果怎樣？快樂被人工合成了。 我們反覆進行了同樣的實驗。 你看到快樂被合成了吧！ 你還想看一下嗎？快樂！ "我有的這張比我預想的還要好。 我得不到的那張，其實不怎麼樣。" （笑聲）這就是人工合成的快樂。
Now what's the right response to that? "Yeah, right!" Now, here's the experiment we did, and I would hope this is going to convince you that "Yeah, right!" was not the right response.
現在你怎麼想呢？"哦，是吧！" 這是我們做的實驗。 我希望這個實驗能夠讓你相信 "哦，是嗎！"不是正確的答案。
We did this experiment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. These are hospitalized patients. Most of them have Korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis that -- they drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. OK? They remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back they don't know who you are.
我們跟患有健忘症的病人 做了同樣的實驗。這些都是住院病人。 大多數人都患有柯薩可夫（korsakoff）綜合徵， 這是一種由於飲酒過度而造成的多發神經炎精神症。 患者記不住新發生的事情。 明白嗎？他們能記得他們的童年，但是如果你自我介紹， 然後離開房間， 當你很快回到他們身邊時，他們不會記得你是誰。
We took our Monet prints to the hospital. And we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. We then gave them the choice between number three and number four Like everybody else, they said, "Gee, thanks Doc! That's great! I could use a new print. I'll take number three." We explained we would have number three mailed to them. We gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour. Back into the room, we say, "Hi, we're back." The patients, bless them, say, "Ah, Doc, I'm sorry, I've got a memory problem, that's why I'm here. If I've met you before, I don't remember." "Really, Jim, you don't remember? I was just here with the Monet prints?" "Sorry, Doc, I just don't have a clue." "No problem, Jim. All I want you to do for me is rank these from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."
我們把莫奈的畫拿到醫院去。 讓病人們來對他們 按照喜愛的程度排序。 然後我們讓他們選擇三號或者四號畫。 像很多人一樣，他們說： "哇，真太好了! 謝謝你。 我有一幅新的畫了。 我要三號。" 我們解釋說，我們會把三號郵寄給他們。 然後我們收起東西，離開了病人的房間。 半個小時後， 我們回去："嘿，我們回來了。" 病人們說："啊，醫生，非常抱歉， 我有一點記憶的毛病，所以才住院的。 如果我們見過面，我恐怕不能記得了。" "哦，是嗎，吉姆，你不記得了？我剛剛帶了幾幅莫奈的畫到這兒來的。" "對不起，醫生，我真的不記得了。" "沒關係，吉姆。我只是想讓你把這些畫 按照你喜愛的程度排序。"
What do they do? Well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. We ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. And what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. These are normal controls, where if I did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. But if I do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. They can't pick their print out of a lineup.
他們怎麼做了？先讓我們確認 他們是真的患有健忘症。我們 讓這些病人告訴我們他們有哪幅畫， 他們上次選了哪幅畫，哪幅是他們的。 我們發現健忘症病人純粹在猜。 如果是正常對照者，如果我這樣問你 你們都記得你選擇了那幅畫。 但是這些健忘症病人， 他們一點都不記得了。他們不能從一堆畫中選出我送他們的那張。
Here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. Right? This is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. Normal controls show -- that was the magic I showed you, now I'm showing it to you in graphical form -- "The one I own is better than I thought. The one I didn't own, the one I left behind, is not as good as I thought." Amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. Think about this result.
這是一般人做的：他們人工合成快樂。 是吧？這是喜愛程度的變化。 第一次排序到第二次排序的變化。 平常人的數據顯示 這正是我要向你們展示的'魔法' 現在我們用圖形來顯示這個變化。 "我有的比我想的還好。我沒擁有的， 其實並不怎麼樣。" 健忘症病人也做了同樣的事。想想這個結果。
These people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. "Yeah, right," is not the right response! What these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. They're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.
這些病人更喜歡他們有的， 雖然他們並不知道自己擁有這個。 "哦，真的嗎？"-你對此表示不屑？ 當人們合成快樂時， 他們真正的，真實的 從感情上和審美角度上改變了對那幅畫的看法。 他們這麼說不僅僅是因為他們擁有這幅畫， 他們其實並不記得自己有那幅畫。
Now, when psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. And yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. And some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. It turns out that freedom -- the ability to make up your mind and change your mind -- is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one you most enjoy. But freedom to choose -- to change and make up your mind -- is the enemy of synthetic happiness. And I'm going to show you why.
現在，當心理學家給你們看這些圖形， 你知道他們是在顯示平均數據。 我們大家都有這個心理免疫系統， 和人工合成快樂的能力。 但是我們中的一些人比另外一些人對這樣的竅門掌握的更好。 同時，人們的心理免疫系統在某些特定環境下能 比在其他情況下運行的更有效。 自由， 決斷力和改變決定的能力 是幫助我們獲得天然快樂的朋友。它能讓你 從各種可能情況中選擇你最喜歡的那種。 但是自由選擇 決斷力和改變決定的能力-是人工合成快樂的敵人。 我來解釋這是為什麼。
Dilbert already knows, of course. You're reading the cartoon as I'm talking. "Dogbert's tech support. How may I abuse you?" "My printer prints a blank page after every document." "Why would you complain about getting free paper?" "Free? Aren't you just giving me my own paper?" "Egad, man! Look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! Only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!" "Ah! Now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!" "What are you doing?" "I'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." Indeed.
當然，呆伯特(Dilbert)已經知道了。 你一邊看卡通，一邊聽我說。 "Dogbert技術支持中心。我該怎麼說你？" "我的打印機在每個文件打印完畢後都會出一張白紙。" "你為什麼要抱怨得到免費的紙呢？" "免費的？這本來就是我的紙啊？" "哎，老兄，看看這些免費的紙的質量和 那些普通的紙！ 只有傻子和騙子才會說它們是一樣的。" "啊！在你說了之後，這些紙看上去是要光滑一些。" "你在幹什麼？" "我在幫助這些人接受他們不能改變的現實。"的確是這樣。
The psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. This is the difference between dating and marriage, right? I mean, you go out on a date with a guy, and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date. You're married to a guy and he picks his nose? Yeah, he has a heart of gold; don't touch the fruitcake. Right? (Laughter) You find a way to be happy with what's happened. Now what I want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.
心理免疫系統在 我們沒有其他選擇時最有效。 這就是約會和婚姻的區別，是吧？ 你出去和一個男人約會， 他扣扣鼻孔，你就不會跟他在約會了。 如果你們結婚了，他扣扣鼻孔。 嗯， 他有金子一般的心。 別動那個水果蛋糕。是吧？（笑聲） 你自我開導，滿於現狀。 現在我告訴你， 如果人們不瞭解自己， 不知道他們有這個心理免疫系統，他們可能做一些很錯誤的決定。
Here's an experiment we did at Harvard. We created a photography course, a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. So we gave them cameras, they went around campus, they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have Harvard memories of. They bring us the camera, we make up a contact sheet, they figure out which are the two best pictures, and we now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms, and they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, "Which one would you like to give up?" They say, "I have to give one up?" "Oh, yes. We need one as evidence of the class project. So you have to give me one. You have to make a choice. You get to keep one, and I get to keep one."
這是我們在哈佛大學做的一個實驗。 我們開設了黑白攝影課程。 學生們來學習如何使用暗室。 我們給他們相機。他們在校園中採景。 每人能拍12張照片。他們拍了他們最喜歡的教授，寢室，他們的狗等等。 任何留給他們哈佛回憶的東西，都可以拍。 然後他們把相機給我們。我們做了一個膠片印出的小樣。 他們選出最好的兩張。 然後我們用了6個小時教他們如何使用暗室。 他們自己把兩張照片映出來。 他們有了兩張極有紀念意義的 8*10的照片。我們問 "哪一張你不要？" 他們問："我不能兩張都要嗎？" "噢，不能。我們需要一張來留底。 因此你必須放棄一張。你一定要做一個決定。 你留一張，我留一張。"
Now, there are two conditions in this experiment. In one case, the students are told, "But you know, if you want to change your mind, I'll always have the other one here, and in the next four days, before I actually mail it to headquarters, I'll be glad to" -- (Laughter) -- yeah, "headquarters" -- "I'll be glad to swap it out with you. In fact, I'll come to your dorm room and give -- just give me an email. Better yet, I'll check with you. You ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable." The other half of the students are told exactly the opposite: "Make your choice. And by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to England. Your picture will be winging its way over the Atlantic. You will never see it again." Now, half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. Other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the next three to six days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. And look at what we find.
現在，這個實驗又分為兩種。 第一種情況，學生們被告知，"你知道， 如果你改變了主意，另外一張還在我這裡。 我要四天以後才把這些照片寄到總部去。 我很樂意。是的，"總部"。 我很樂意跟你換。事實上， 我會把照片送到你的寢室來換， 只要發電郵給我就行了。或者我會聯繫你。 只要你改變了主意，我們可以換照片。" 其他的學生被告知的正好相反： "選一張照片。順便說一下， 另外一張照片馬上就要寄到英國去。 你的照片要漂洋過海。 你再也見不到它了。" 然後， 我們讓每組中一半的學生 來預測 他們對留下的照片 和送走的照片的喜愛程度會如何。 其他的學生回到他們的寢室。 我們測量了在後來的三到六天之中， 他們對照片的喜愛和滿意程度。 看看我們發現了什麼。
First of all, here's what students think is going to happen. They think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. It's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.
首先，這裡是學生們覺得事情會怎樣。 他們想他們可能會更喜歡他們選擇的照片， 而不是留給我們的那一張。 但是這算不上是統計上的顯著差異。 差異很小， 能不能換照片影響並不大。
Wrong-o. Bad simulators. Because here's what's really happening. Both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! And people who are deliberating -- "Should I return it? Have I gotten the right one? Maybe this isn't the good one? Maybe I left the good one?" -- have killed themselves. They don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has expired, they still don't like their picture. Why? Because the reversible condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.
錯啦！這一次模擬器工作得很不好！實際上， 在交換以前和5天后， 那些沒有交換權， 不能選擇, 不能更改決定的學生，非常喜歡他們的照片。 另外的學生則在深思熟慮。"我應該換照片嗎? 我選了好的那張嗎？也許這張並不好？ 交給老師的那張或許更好？"這些問題簡直折磨人。 他們不喜歡他們的照片。事實上， 甚至在交換期結束後， 他們還是不喜歡自己的照片。為什麼？ 因為可逆轉的選擇不利於 人工合成的快樂。
So here's the final piece of this experiment. We bring in a whole new group of naive Harvard students and we say, "You know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. We could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. Which course would you like to be in? " Duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. Hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the course in which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. Because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.
這裡是這個實驗的最後一部分。 我們找了新的一批天真的哈佛學生。 我們告訴他們："我們將開設攝影課程， 我們有兩種方案。 一是你拍兩張照片， 然後有四天來選擇保留哪張照片。 另外一種是你拍攝兩張照片， 然後當機立斷做選擇。 一但做了選擇，你就不能更改。你願意選擇那種方式？ "啊! 66%的學生，差不多三分之二 更願意加入那個可以改變選擇的。 喂！66%的學生選擇了那個讓他們 最終將非常不滿意照片的方案。 因為他們不知道在什麼條件下，人工合成快樂有效。
The Bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically: "'Tis nothing good or bad / But thinking makes it so." It's nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right. Is there really nothing good or bad? Is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to Paris are just the same thing? That seems like a one-question IQ test. They can't be exactly the same.
莎士比亞說的正好反映了我的看法。 他說的有點誇張。 "事無善惡.思想使然。" 這是美麗的詩句，但是並不一定全對。 事真的無善惡之分嗎？ 膽囊手術真的和到巴黎旅行 一樣嗎？這聽上去想一個IQ測試題。 他們並不完全一樣。
In more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, and he said this. This is worth contemplating: "The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another ... Some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice." In other words: yes, some things are better than others.
現代資本主義之父，亞當·斯密(Adam Smith)， 用浮華卻更貼近事實的語言 闡述如下。 這是值得思考的。 "人生中的悲劇與無序之源， 似乎皆來源於人們 過高地評估某種時局， 誠然，某些時局確實值得人們追求， 但是，不管這種追求有多大的合理性， 我們都不可因這種痴情的追求而打破 謹慎、公正的法則，亦不可破壞我們未來的心境。 因為假如我們真的那麼做，我們必有一天會憶及當日的愚昧， 或者是因為自己曾經的偏私而感到後悔。" 用另一句話說：沒錯，生活中確實存在某些事物比別的事物更有價值，
We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. When our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. When our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. When our fears are bounded, we're prudent, we're cautious, we're thoughtful. When our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.
我們確實應該追求價值更高的東西。 但是，假如我們過分看重不同選擇之間的差異， 因而拼命的追求我們想要的東西時， 我們就可能面臨危險。 當我們的追求不是無節制的時候，我們可以生活的快樂。 當我們的追求不受節制的時候，我們會生活得很痛苦，甚至會去欺詐，偷竊，傷害他人， 更甚至是犧牲真正有價值的東西。當我們畏懼受控制時， 我們會行事謹慎、三思而後行。 當我們的畏懼失去節制並無限膨脹的時候， 我們會變得魯莽大意，或者膽小如鼠。
The lesson I want to leave you with from these data is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.
最後用一句話來概括我們從這些數據中學到的東西： 我們每個人的期望與擔憂在一定程度上都被誇大了， 通過選擇感受，我們自己可以生產出 我們所不懈追求的那樣東西。
謝謝。
閱讀更多 用戶3579603691243230 的文章
