声明: 本站全部内容源自互联网,不进行任何盈利行为
仅做 整合 / 美化 处理
So why do you think the rich should pay more in taxes?
为什么你认为富人就要多交税？
Why did you buy the latest iPhone?
你为什么要买最新的 （苹果手机）iphone？
Why did you pick your current partner?
你为什么选择了你现在的伴侣？
And why did so many people vote for Donald Trump?
还有为什么有那么多人 投了唐纳德·特朗普的票？
What were the reasons, why did they do it?
这背后的原因是什么， 他们为什么这样做？
So we ask this kind of question all the time,
我们一直都问这些问题，
and we expect to get an answer.
并且也希望得到答案。
And when being asked, we expect ourselves to know the answer,
我们也会被问到这些问题， 也希望自己知道答案，
to simply tell why we did as we did.
能够简单的回答 为什么我们要这么做。
But do we really know why?
但是我们真的知道为什么吗？
So when you say that you prefer George Clooney to Tom Hanks,
当你说你喜欢乔治·克鲁尼 多过汤姆·克鲁斯，
due to his concern for the environment,
是因为你觉得 前者更关注环境问题，
is that really true?
那是真的吗？
So you can be perfectly sincere and genuinely believe
你能够诚心诚意的相信
that this is the reason that drives your choice,
那就是驱使你做出选择的原因，
but to me, it may still feel like something is missing.
但是对于我来说， 这其中还是遗漏了一些东西。
As it stands, due to the nature of subjectivity,
事实表明，由于 主观臆断的自然属性，
it is actually very hard to ever prove that people are wrong about themselves.
很难证明人们自己会 对自己有错误的认知。
So I'm an experimental psychologist,
我是一个实验心理学家，
and this is the problem we've been trying to solve in our lab.
这个问题是我们实验室 长久以致力解决的问题。
So we wanted to create an experiment
我们计划设计一个实验，
that would allow us to challenge what people say about themselves,
能够使我们挑战 人们对自己的认知，
regardless of how certain they may seem.
不论看起来他们多么的认同自己。
But tricking people about their own mind is hard.
但是欺骗人们的思想是困难的。
So we turned to the professionals.
于是我们转向专业人员。
The magicians.
魔术师。
So they're experts at creating the illusion of a free choice.
他们很善于创造 一个自由选择的幻觉。
So when they say, "Pick a card, any card,"
当他们说：“选张卡片，任意一张“，
the only thing you know is that your choice is no longer free.
你能知道就是你的选择不再随意。
So we had a few fantastic brainstorming sessions
因此我们和一组瑞典的魔术师，
with a group of Swedish magicians,
来了几轮精彩的头脑风暴，
and they helped us create a method
他们帮我们想出了一些方法，
in which we would be able to manipulate the outcome of people's choices.
能够让我们操控人们选择的结果。
This way we would know when people are wrong about themselves,
这样一来我们就能知道 人们何时对自己的认知是错误的，
even if they don't know this themselves.
甚至他们自己都没意识到这一点。
So I will now show you a short movie showing this manipulation.
我现在给你播放一段短片 来演示这种操控。
So it's quite simple.
这相当简单。
The participants make a choice,
参与者要做出选择，
but I end up giving them the opposite.
但我最终会给出 与他们的选择相反的结果。
And then we want to see: How did they react, and what did they say?
到时我们想看的是： 他们的反应如何，他们怎么说。
So it's quite simple, but see if you can spot the magic going on.
这很简单，但是要看你 能不能看出到底发生了什么。
And this was shot with real participants, they don't know what's going on.
这里拍摄的都是真实的参与者， 他们对幕后的一切毫不知情。
(Video) Petter Johansson: Hi, my name's Petter.
（短片）培特·乔纳森： 嗨，我的名字是培特。
Woman: Hi, I'm Becka.
女士：嗨，我是贝卡。
PJ: I'm going to show you pictures like this.
培特：我要给你看像这样的图片。
And you'll have to decide which one you find more attractive.
然后你要决定哪一张最吸引你。
Becka: OK.
贝卡：好的。
PJ: And then sometimes, I will ask you why you prefer that face.
培特：然后我还会问你 为什么你喜欢那张脸。
Becka: OK.
贝卡：好的。
PJ: Ready? Becka: Yeah.
培特：准备好了吗？ 贝卡：好了。
PJ: Why did you prefer that one?
培特：为什么你喜欢那一张？
Becka: The smile, I think.
贝卡：笑容，我认为。
PJ: Smile.
彼得：笑容。
Man: One on the left.
男士：左边的那张。
Again, this one just struck me.
这张恰巧使我很着迷。
Interesting shot.
很有趣的拍照。
Since I'm a photographer, I like the way it's lit and looks.
我是摄影师，比较喜欢 它展现光线与容貌的方式。
Petter Johansson: But now comes the trick.
（旁白）培特： 下面，见证奇迹的时刻到了。
(Video) Woman 1: This one.
（短片）女士1: 这一张。
PJ: So they get the opposite of their choice.
（旁白）培特：他们拿到的是 之前没有选的那张照片。
And let's see what happens.
让我们来看看会发生什么事。
Woman 2: Um ...
（短片）女士2: 嗯。。。
I think he seems a little more innocent than the other guy.
我认为他看起来 比另一个人无辜些。
Man: The one on the left.
男士：左边的这位。
I like her smile and contour of the nose and face.
我喜欢它的笑容， 还有她鼻子和脸的轮廓。
So it's a little more interesting to me, and her haircut.
有点儿意思， 还有她的头发。
Woman 3: This one.
女士3：这一张。
I like the smirky look better.
我喜欢这种得意的笑容。
PJ: You like the smirky look better?
培特：你比较喜欢得意的表情？
(Laughter)
（观众笑声）
Woman 3: This one.
女士3：这一张。
PJ: What made you choose him?
彼得：你为什么选这张？
Woman 3: I don't know, he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.
女士3：我不知道，他看起来 有点儿像霍比特人。
(Laughter)
（观众笑声）
PJ: And what happens in the end
（旁白）培特： 当我告诉他们
when I tell them the true nature of the experiment?
这个实验的真实目的后， 会发生什么事呢？
Yeah, that's it. I just have to ask a few questions.
（短片）是的，就是这些。 我还要问一些问题。
Man: Sure.
男士：当然。
PJ: What did you think of this experiment, was it easy or hard?
培特：你觉得这实验怎么样， 感觉容易还是难？
Man: It was easy.
男士：容易。
PJ: During the experiments,
培特：在实验当中，
I actually switched the pictures three times.
我其实将照片偷换了三次。
Was this anything you noticed?
你有注意到什么了吗？
Man: No. I didn't notice any of that.
男士：不，我没有注意到什么。
PJ: Not at all? Man: No.
培特：一点都没有吗？ 男士：没有。
Switching the pictures as far as ...
换照片是怎么回事。。。
PJ: Yeah, you were pointing at one of them but I actually gave you the opposite.
培特：就是你选了其中的一张， 而我给你的是另外一张。
Man: The opposite one. OK, when you --
男士：相反的那张， 好的，当你——
No. Shows you how much my attention span was.
不，这是展示我的 注意力持续时间多长。
(Laughter)
（观众笑声）
PJ: Did you notice that sometimes during the experiment
培特：在实验进行当中， 你有注意到
I switched the pictures?
我有几次偷换了照片了吗？
Woman 2: No, I did not notice that.
女士2：不，我没有注意到。
PJ: You were pointing at one, but then I gave you the other one.
培特：你指的一张，但是 我给你的却是另外一张。
No inclination of that happening?
没有发现吗？
Woman 2: No.
女士2：没有。
Woman 2: I did not notice.
女士2：我没有注意到。
(Laughs)
（笑声）
PJ: Thank you.
培特：谢谢。
Woman 2: Thank you.
女士2：谢谢。 （短片结束）
PJ: OK, so as you probably figured out now,
培特：那么你现在大概能猜到了，
the trick is that I have two cards in each hand,
骗术就是，我每只手里 都拿了两张牌，
and when I hand one of them over,
当我把背面那张牌推过去的时候，
the black one kind of disappears into the black surface on the table.
黑色那张原本被选的牌就在 黑色桌面的映衬下消失，被我藏起来了。
So using pictures like this,
像这样使用照片，
normally not more than 20 percent of the participants detect these tries.
通常有不到20%的 参与者会发现这些骗局。
And as you saw in the movie,
正如你在影片中看到的，
when in the end we explain what's going on,
最后我向他们解释 发生了什么的时候，
they're very surprised and often refuse to believe the trick has been made.
他们都非常的惊讶并且通常 拒绝相信其中有诈。
So this shows that this effect is quite robust and a genuine effect.
这就表明，这种效应 是十分强烈而又真实的。
But if you're interested in self-knowledge, as I am,
但是，如果你和我一样对 “自知之明”感兴趣的话。
the more interesting bit is,
最有趣的部分是：
OK, so what did they say when they explained these choices?
他们会如何解释 自己所作出的选择？
So we've done a lot of analysis
为此，我们做了很多关于
of the verbal reports in these experiments.
这个实验当中口头报告的分析。
And this graph simply shows
这张图表明，
that if you compare what they say in a manipulated trial
如果你将有骗局的那组的说辞
with a nonmanipulated trial,
和没有骗局的那组相比较，
that is when they explain a normal choice they've made
你会发现，他们对自己 正常选择的解释
and one where we manipulated the outcome,
和经过操控后的解释是
we find that they are remarkably similar.
非常相似的。
So they are just as emotional, just as specific,
他们都同样的情绪化，目标明确，
and they are expressed with the same level of certainty.
并且他们表达的 肯定程度也处于同一水平。
So the strong conclusion to draw from this
从这个实验中得到的 强有力的结论是，
is that if there are no differences
如果在真正的选择和
between a real choice and a manipulated choice,
被操控的选择之间没有差异的话，
perhaps we make things up all the time.
或许我们一直都在编造理由。
But we've also done studies
但是我们也做过研究，
where we try to match what they say with the actual faces.
尝试将实际的面容 与和他们的描述相匹配。
And then we find things like this.
然后我们发现了这样的事情。
So here, this male participant, he preferred the girl to the left,
这个男性参与者，他偏好左面的女人，
he ended up with the one to the right.
但结果他却是选的右边的那位。
And then, he explained his choice like this.
然后，他给出的解释是：
"She is radiant.
“她明艳动人，
I would rather have approached her at the bar than the other one.
我宁可在酒吧碰到是她 而不是另外一位。
And I like earrings."
并且我喜欢这耳环。“
And whatever made him choose the girl on the left to begin with,
但开始不管是什么理由 让他选择了左边的女人，
it can't have been the earrings,
耳环肯定不是其中一个，
because they were actually sitting on the girl on the right.
因为，右边的女人才戴耳环。
So this is a clear example of a post hoc construction.
这明显是一个“事后构建”的例子。
So they just explained the choice afterwards.
因此，他们只是后来 才对作出的选择进行解释。
So what this experiment shows is,
那么这个实验表明，
OK, so if we fail to detect that our choices have been changed,
如果我们没有发现 自己的选择被调换了，
we will immediately start to explain them in another way.
我们会立即开始用 另外一种方式来解释。
And what we also found
我们还发现
is that the participants often come to prefer the alternative,
参与者会渐渐喜欢上另外那个，
that they were led to believe they liked.
他们被引导，从而相信 那就是他们喜欢的。
So if we let them do the choice again,
如果我们再让他们做出一次选择，
they will now choose the face they had previously rejected.
他们就会选择曾经 被他们拒绝掉的那个。
So this is the effect we call "choice blindness."
这就是我们所说的 “选择盲目性”效应。
And we've done a number of different studies --
并且我们做了很多不同的研究——
we've tried consumer choices,
我们在消费者选择上做过实验，
choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
建立在味觉和嗅觉上的实验， 甚至还有推理问题。
But what you all want to know is of course
但你们都想知道的是，
does this extend also to more complex, more meaningful choices?
这个现象能否适用于更复杂， 更有意义的选择上呢？
Like those concerning moral and political issues.
比如那些关注于 道德和政治的问题。
So the next experiment, it needs a little bit of a background.
下一个实验需要一些背景知识。
So in Sweden, the political landscape
在瑞典，国家的政治事务是
is dominated by a left-wing and a right-wing coalition.
由左翼和右翼的联合政府主导。
And the voters may move a little bit between the parties within each coalition,
投票人可能会在每个联盟中的 两党之间有一点点犹疑，
but there is very little movement between the coalitions.
但在不同的联盟之间 就没有那么多犹疑。
And before each elections,
在每次选举之前，
the newspapers and the polling institutes
报纸或投票机构，
put together what they call "an election compass"
合起来拿出一个所谓的 “选举指南”，
which consists of a number of dividing issues
这个包含了一系列的具有 分化性的问题，
that sort of separates the two coalitions.
用来分离开两个联盟。
Things like if tax on gasoline should be increased
那些议题包括， 比如燃油费是否要增加，
or if the 13 months of paid parental leave
或者，父母是否应该平均
should be split equally between the two parents
享用那个13个月的产假，
in order to increase gender equality.
以便增加性别平等的机会。
So, before the last Swedish election,
在瑞典最后一次选举之前，
we created an election compass of our own.
我们自己做了一个选举指南。
So we walked up to people in the street
我们走到街上去问路人，
and asked if they wanted to do a quick political survey.
问他们是否愿意 做一个快速的政治调查问卷。
So first we had them state their voting intention
首先，我们让他们在两个联盟
between the two coalitions.
之间说出他们的选举倾向。
Then we asked them to answer 12 of these questions.
然后让他们回答这12个问题。
They would fill in their answers,
他们会写出他们的答案，
and we would ask them to discuss,
然后我会让他们来讨论，
so OK, why do you think tax on gas should be increased?
好，为什么你认为要增加燃油税？
And we'd go through the questions.
我们接着把问题都问完。
Then we had a color coded template
然后我们用涂有颜色的模版
that would allow us to tally their overall score.
记录他们的总分数。
So this person would have one, two, three, four
因此，这个人将会有1，2，3，4
five, six, seven, eight, nine scores to the left,
5，6，7，8， 9分记在左边。
so he would lean to the left, basically.
因此，基本上他会倾向于左翼。
And in the end, we also had them fill in their voting intention once more.
最后，我们再让他们填写投票意向。
But of course, there was also a trick involved.
当然，这里也有诈。
So first, we walked up to people,
首先，我们找到一些路人，
we asked them about their voting intention
询问他们的投票意向，
and then when they started filling in,
然后当他们填写的时候，
we would fill in a set of answers going in the opposite direction.
我们会填写一份相反的答案，
We would put it under the notepad.
并放在写字板的下方。
And when we get the questionnaire,
然后，当我们拿到填好的问卷时，
we would simply glue it on top of the participant's own answer.
会直接把它粘到参与者 自己的答案上面。
So there, it's gone.
于是乎，它不见了。
And then we would ask about each of the questions:
然后，我们会再问他们这几个问题：
How did you reason here?
这里你给出的理由是什么？
And they'll state the reasons,
然后他们会陈述理由，
together we will sum up their overall score.
同时，我们还会算他们的总分。
And in the end, they will state their voting intention again.
最后，他们还会再次陈述 自己的投票意向。
So what we find first of all here,
那么，我们首先了解到的是，
is that very few of these manipulations are detected.
这些小把戏很少会被揭穿。
And they're not detected in the sense that they realize,
即便被发现，他们也不会觉得，
"OK, you must have changed my answer,"
"好吧，你肯定是换掉了我的答案，“
it was more the case that,
更可能是这样，
"OK, I must've misunderstood the question the first time I read it.
“好吧，我第一次读题目的时候 一定是误解它了。
Can I please change it?"
我可以换回答案吗？“
And even if a few of these manipulations were changed,
即便部分被篡改的答案 被改回来了，
the overall majority was missed.
总的来说，大部分还是被忽略了。
So we managed to switch 90 percent of the participants' answers
我们成功替换了90%参与者的答案，
from left to right, right to left, their overall profile.
从左翼到右翼，从右翼到左翼， 他们整个的概述。
And what happens then when they are asked to motivate their choices?
当他们被问及为什么会 选择这个答案时，会发生什么事呢？
And here we find much more interesting verbal reports
在这里，我们发现了比起面部测试
than compared to the faces.
更有趣的口头报告。
People say things like this, and I'll read it to you.
人们这样说，我读给你们听。
So, "Large-scale governmental surveillance of email and internet traffic
他们说：“ 政府大规模针对 电子邮件和网络系统的监管
ought to be permissible as means to combat international crime and terrorism."
应当是被允许的，这意味着 可以打击国际犯罪和恐怖组织。“
"So you agree to some extent with this statement." "Yes."
“那么在一定程度上 你是同意这一陈述的。” “是的”。
"So how did you reason here?"
“那么，这里你给的理由是什么？”
"Well, like, as it is so hard to get at international crime and terrorism,
“嗯，鉴于打击国际犯罪 和恐怖主义是非常困难的，
I think there should be those kinds of tools."
我想那应该就是 可以采用的工具。”
And then the person remembers an argument from the newspaper in the morning.
然后有个人记起早上的 报纸上有一段论述。
"Like in the newspaper today,
“就像早上报纸讲的那样，
it said they can like, listen to mobile phones from prison,
据说，他们能够监听到从狱中 打进打出的电话，
if a gang leader tries to continue his crimes from inside.
比如是否有黑帮头目想在狱中 继续从事他的犯罪活动。
And I think it's madness that we have so little power
我认为不可思议的是，
that we can't stop those things
我们有希望 阻止此类事情发生，
when we actually have the possibility to do so."
但是却没有足够的 能力做到这一点。“
And then there's a little bit back and forth in the end:
最后还有一段犹豫不决的说辞：
"I don't like that they have access to everything I do,
“我不喜欢他们介入到 我做的任何事情中，
but I still think it's worth it in the long run."
但我还是认为这是长久之计。“
So, if you didn't know that this person
如果你不知道这个人刚刚
just took part in a choice blindness experiment,
参加了那个盲选实验，
I don't think you would question
我想你不会质疑
that this is the true attitude of that person.
这就是那个人的真实态度。
And what happens in the end, with the voting intention?
那么最后的投票意向是怎样呢？
What we find -- that one is also clearly affected by the questionnaire.
我们发现，人的思想也明显 受到了问卷的影响。
So we have 10 participants
我们有10个参与者
shifting from left to right or from right to left.
从左翼转到右翼， 右翼换到左翼。
We have another 19 that go from clear voting intention
还有另外19个人的投票意向从
to being uncertain.
明确变到不明确。
Some go from being uncertain to clear voting intention.
有些人的投票意向由不明确 转向明确。
And then there is a number of participants staying uncertain throughout.
还有很多参与者从头到尾都不确定。
And that number is interesting
这个数字很有意思，
because if you look at what the polling institutes say
因为，你若去看 民意调查机构的说法，
the closer you get to an election,
越接近大选时，
the only people that are sort of in play
还能够受到影响的人，
are the ones that are considered uncertain.
就是那些犹豫不决的人。
But we show there is a much larger number
但是，我们的试验表明 有相当一部分人
that would actually consider shifting their attitudes.
实际上还会考虑转变他们的态度。
And here I must point out, of course, that you are not allowed to use this
在这里我还想指出的是，当然 你会被禁止在大选之前
as an actual method to change people's votes
使用这项手段来
before an election,
改变人们的投票意向。
and we clearly debriefed them afterwards
之后我们还很清楚地告诉了他们，
and gave them every opportunity to change back
我们给他们改回原来
to whatever they thought first.
他们所想的答案的机会。
But what this shows is that if you can get people
但是这个试验表明， 如果你可以让这些人们
to see the opposite view and engage in a conversation with themselves,
看到与他们相对的观点，并且 让他们仔细斟酌自己的想法，
that could actually make them change their views.
那就可以使他们改变他们的观点。
OK.
好的。
So what does it all mean?
那么这一切都是什么意思？
What do I think is going on here?
我认为这里到底发生了什么呢？
So first of all,
首先，
a lot of what we call self-knowledge is actually self-interpretation.
那些我们所谓的自知之明 其实是我们的自我诠释。
So I see myself make a choice,
我明白我做了一个选择，
and then when I'm asked why,
而当我被问起为什么时，
I just try to make as much sense of it as possible
我仅仅是想让我的解释
when I make an explanation.
听起来尽可能的合理。
But we do this so quickly and with such ease
但是我们迅速并且很容易地 完成了这一过程，
that we think we actually know the answer when we answer why.
就是我们会误以为 自己已经知道答案了。
And as it is an interpretation,
因为这仅仅是一种诠释，
of course we sometimes make mistakes.
当然我们时常会犯错误。
The same way we make mistakes when we try to understand other people.
当我们尝试去理解他人时， 我们会以同样的方式犯错误。
So beware when you ask people the question "why"
当你问别人“为什么”的 问题时要小心，
because what may happen is that, if you asked them,
因为将会发生的事是， 如果你问他们，
"So why do you support this issue?"
“为什么你会支持这个主张？”
"Why do you stay in this job or this relationship?" --
“你为什么从事这份工作， 或持续这段感情？“
what may happen when you ask why is that you actually create an attitude
其实你已经建立了一种态度，
that wasn't there before you asked the question.
这种态度在你问 这个问题之前并不存在。
And this is of course important in your professional life, as well,
当然这在你的职业生涯中也很重要，
or it could be.
或可能很重要。
If, say, you design something and then you ask people,
比如你设计了一样东西， 然后问人们，
"Why do you think this is good or bad?"
“你为什么说它好，或者坏？”
Or if you're a journalist asking a politician,
或者如果你是一个记者， 你问一个政治家，
"So, why did you make this decision?"
“你为什么要做这个决定？”
Or if indeed you are a politician
或者你就是一个政治家，
and try to explain why a certain decision was made.
并且尝试解释做出 某一决定的原因。
So this may all seem a bit disturbing.
这一切看起来会有些让人不安。
But if you want to look at it from a positive direction,
但是如果你从一个 正面的角度来看，
it could be seen as showing,
这可能就表明，
OK, so we're actually a little bit more flexible than we think.
好吧，我们实际上比 自己想的要更灵活些。
We can change our minds.
我们可以改变我们的想法。
Our attitudes are not set in stone.
我们的态度也不是一成不变的。
And we can also change the minds of others,
并且我们也可以 改变其他人的想法，
if we can only get them to engage with the issue
只要让他们深入讨论问题，
and see it from the opposite view.
并从对立的角度来看。
And in my own personal life, since starting with this research --
在我个人的生活中， 自从我开始这个实验——
So my partner and I, we've always had the rule
我和我的合作者， 我们一直遵守一项原则，
that you're allowed to take things back.
就是你可以反悔。
Just because I said I liked something a year ago,
就像我说的， 一年前我喜欢的东西，
doesn't mean I have to like it still.
并不意味着我现在还要喜欢它。
And getting rid of the need to stay consistent
摆脱对维持一致性的需要，
is actually a huge relief and makes relational life so mush easier to live.
其实是一个巨大的解脱，并且 可以让我们更好的经营人际关系。
Anyway, so the conclusion must be:
总之，结论就是：
know that you don't know yourself.
要明白你不懂你自己。
Or at least not as well as you think you do.
或者，至少不像 你想的那么了解自己。
Thanks.
谢谢。
(Applause)
（鼓掌）