×

LingQをより快適にするためCookieを使用しています。サイトの訪問により同意したと見なされます クッキーポリシー.

今すぐこのレッスンを開始
image

TED Talks, Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions?

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

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. " 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. And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways.First of all, I enjoyed writing.But the more interesting thing was that II 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.

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. 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. 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. 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 indicatedt hey 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?

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.

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. (Laughter)

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. (Laughter)

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 drivers 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

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.

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.

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. 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.

(Laughter)

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. 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?

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 health care and retirement and stock markets,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. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? Dan Ariely fragt: Haben wir die Kontrolle über unsere eigenen Entscheidungen? Dan Ariely se pregunta: ¿Tenemos el control de nuestras propias decisiones? ダン・アリエリーはこう問いかける。 Dan Ariely pergunta: "Estamos em controlo das nossas próprias decisões? Дэн Ариели спрашивает: контролируем ли мы свои собственные решения? 丹-阿里利问：我们能控制自己的决定吗？

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

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. Итак, проработав несколько лет в Массачусетском технологическом институте, я понял, что писать академические статьи не так уж и увлекательно. Знаете, я не знаю, сколько из них вы читаете, но читать это неинтересно, а часто и писать - неинтересно. даже хуже писать. Поэтому я решил попробовать написать что-то более увлекательное. И мне пришла в голову идея написать поваренную книгу. И название моей поваренной книги должно было быть «Обед без крошек: Искусство переедать» раковина. "(Laughter)And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen.And I was quite excited about this. "(Смех) И это был взгляд на жизнь через кухню. И я был очень взволнован этим. 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. Я собирался немного поговорить об исследованиях, немного о кухне. Знаете, мы так много делаем на кухне, что я подумал, что это будет интересно. Я написал пару глав и отнес это в прессу MIT. и они сказали: «Симпатично, но не для нас. Go and find somebody else. "I tried other people and everybody said the same thing,"Cute. «Я пробовал других людей, и все говорили то же самое», - Милый. Not for us. " Until somebody said,"Look, if you're serious about this,you first have to write a book about your research. Пока кто-то не сказал: «Послушайте, если вы серьезно относитесь к этому, вам сначала нужно написать книгу о своем исследовании. 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. Вы должны опубликовать что-то, и тогда у вас будет возможность написать что-то еще. Если вы действительно хотите это сделать, вы должны это сделать. "So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research.I do this all day long. Я сказал: «Знаешь, я действительно не хочу писать о своих исследованиях. Я делаю это весь день. I want to write something else.Something a bit more free, less constrained. Я хочу написать что-нибудь еще, что-нибудь более свободное, менее ограниченное. "And this person was very forceful and said,"Look. "E essa pessoa foi muito forte e disse:" Olha. «И этот человек был очень напористым и сказал:« Смотри. That's the only way you'll ever do it. Это единственный способ сделать это. "So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- "I had a sabbatical. «Итак, я сказал:« Хорошо, если мне придется это сделать… »У меня был творческий отпуск. I said, "I'll write about my research if there is no other way. Я сказал: «Я напишу о своем исследовании, если не будет другого пути. And then I'll get to do my cookbook. А потом я займусь своей кулинарной книгой. "So I wrote a book on my research. And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways.First of all, I enjoyed writing.But the more interesting thing was that II 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. И это оказалось довольно весело с двух сторон. Во-первых, мне понравилось писать. Но более интересным было то, что я начал учиться у людей. Это фантастическое время для написания, потому что есть так много отзывов, которые вы можете получить от них. Люди пишут мне о своем личном опыте, о своих примерах, о том, с чем они не согласны, и нюансах. И даже находясь здесь - я имею в виду последние несколько дней, я действительно знал о высотах навязчивого поведения, о которых никогда не думал. (Laughter)Which I think is just fascinating. (Смех) Что, на мой взгляд, просто очаровательно.

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? Я расскажу вам немного об иррациональном поведении. И я хочу начать с нескольких примеров визуальной иллюзии как метафоры рациональности. Итак, подумайте об этих двух таблицах. И вы, должно быть, видели эту иллюзию. Если бы я спросил вас, что длиннее, вертикальная линия на столе слева или горизонтальная линия на столе справа? Какой из них кажется длиннее? Кто-нибудь видит что-нибудь, кроме того, что левая длиннее? Нет, верно? 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. É impossível. Mas o mais legal da ilusão visual é que podemos facilmente demonstrar erros. Então, eu posso colocar algumas linhas; isso não ajuda.Eu posso animar as linhas.E, na medida em que você acredita que não diminui as linhas, o que não o fiz, eu já provei a você que seus olhos estavam enganando você.Agora, o interessante sobre isso é quando eu retiro as linhas, é como se você não tivesse aprendido nada no último minuto. Это невозможно. Но в визуальной иллюзии хорошо то, что мы можем легко продемонстрировать ошибки. Так что я могу добавить несколько строк; это не помогает. Я могу оживить линии. И в той степени, в которой вы верите, что я не сокращал линии, чего я не делал, я доказал вам, что ваши глаза обманывали вас. А теперь самое интересное об этом, когда я убираю строчки, это как будто вы ничего не узнали за последнюю минуту. (Laughter)You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is. (Смех) Вы не можете смотреть на это и говорить: «Хорошо, теперь я вижу реальность такой, какая она есть. "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. Невозможно преодолеть это ощущение, что это действительно дольше. Наша интуиция действительно обманывает нас повторяющимся, предсказуемым и последовательным образом. И мы почти ничего не можем с этим поделать, кроме как взять линейку и начать ее измерять. Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions.What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to?Brown. Вот еще одна - одна из моих любимых иллюзий. Какой цвет вы видите, на который указывает верхняя стрелка? Коричневый. 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. Желтый. Оказывается, они идентичны. Может ли кто-нибудь увидеть их идентичными? Очень-очень сложно. Я могу покрыть остальную часть куба. И если я закрою остальную часть куба, вы увидите, что они идентичны. И если вы не верьте мне, вы можете получить слайд позже, заняться декоративно-прикладным искусством и увидеть, что они идентичны. Но опять же, это та же история, что если убрать фон, иллюзия вернется. 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. Верно, у нас нет способа не увидеть эту иллюзию. Я думаю, что если вы дальтоник, я не думаю, что вы это видите. Я хочу, чтобы вы думали об иллюзии как о метафоре. 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. Зрение - одна из лучших вещей, которые мы делаем. У нас есть огромная часть нашего мозга, посвященная зрению - большая, чем чему-либо еще. Мы видим больше часов в день, чем делаем что-либо еще. И мы эволюционно устроены. И если у нас есть эти предсказуемые повторяющиеся ошибки в видении, в которых мы так хороши, то каков шанс, что мы не сделаем еще больше ошибок в том, в чем мы не так хороши - например, в финансовой принятие решений: (Смех) у нас нет эволюционной причины, чтобы делать, у нас нет специализированной части мозга, и мы не делаем так много часов в день. проблема может заключаться в том, что мы на самом деле делаем намного больше ошибок и, что еще хуже, не имеем легкого способа их увидеть, потому что в визуальных иллюзиях мы можем легко продемонстрировать ошибки; в когнитивных иллюзиях гораздо труднее продемонстрировать людям ошибки . 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 indicatedt hey would be interested in giving their organs to donation.And these are different countries in Europe. Таким же образом я хочу показать вам некоторые когнитивные иллюзии или иллюзии принятия решений. И это один из моих любимых сюжетов в социальных науках. Он взят из статьи Джонсона и Голдштейна, и он в основном показывает процент людей. которые указали, что они были бы заинтересованы в передаче своих органов на пожертвование. Это разные страны Европы. 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? И вы в основном видите два типа стран: страны справа, которые, кажется, дают много; и страны слева, которые, кажется, дают очень мало или намного меньше. Вопрос в том, почему? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little?

When you ask people this question,they usually think that it has to be something about culture.Right? Когда вы задаете людям этот вопрос, они обычно думают, что это должно быть связано с культурой. 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. Насколько вы заботитесь о людях? Если вы отдаете свои органы кому-то другому, это, вероятно, зависит от того, насколько вы заботитесь об обществе, насколько вы связаны друг с другом, или, может быть, это касается религии, но, если вы посмотрите на этот сюжет, вы можете увидеть эти страны которые мы считаем очень похожими, на самом деле демонстрируют совершенно разное поведение. Например, Швеция находится полностью справа, а Дания, которая, на наш взгляд, очень похожа в культурном отношении, находится полностью слева. Германия находится слева. 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. И Бельгия находится справа. И, наконец, в зависимости от вашей конкретной версии европейского сходства, вы можете думать о Великобритании и Франции как о культурном сходстве, но оказывается, что с точки зрения донорства органов они сильно отличаются.

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. Aliás, a Holanda é uma história interessante.Você vê que a Holanda é o maior do pequeno grupo.Ela chega a 28% depois de enviar uma carta a todas as famílias do país, enviando uma carta pedindo às pessoas que participem desse programa de doação de órgãos .Você conhece a expressão "implorar apenas leva você tão longe"? São 28% em doação de órgãos. Между прочим, Нидерланды - интересная история. Вы видите, что Нидерланды - своего рода самая большая из небольшой группы. Оказывается, они получили 28 процентов после того, как отправили каждой семье в стране письмо с просьбой присоединиться к этой программе донорства органов. Вы знаете выражение «попрошайничество только до сих пор»? Это 28 процентов в донорстве органов. (Laughter)

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. Но что бы ни делали страны справа, они делают гораздо лучшую работу, чем попрошайничество. Так что же они делают? Оказывается, секрет кроется в форме в DMV. И вот история. Страны слева получите в DMV бланк, который выглядит примерно так. Отметьте поле ниже, если хотите участвовать в программе донорства органов. И что происходит? Люди не проверяют и не присоединяются. Страны справа те, которые дают много, имеют немного другую форму. В нем говорится, что поставьте галочку ниже, если вы не хотите участвовать. Интересно, что когда люди получают это, они снова не проверяют - но теперь они присоединяются. (Laughter)

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. А теперь подумайте, что это означает: мы просыпаемся утром и чувствуем, что принимаем решения. Мы просыпаемся утром, открываем шкаф и чувствуем, что решаем, что надеть. Мы открываем холодильник и чувствуем, что мы решаем, что есть. На самом деле это означает, что большая часть этих решений зависит не от нас, а от человека, который разрабатывает эту форму. Когда вы войдете в DMV, человек, который разработал форму, получит оказывает огромное влияние на то, чем вы в конечном итоге будете заниматься. Теперь также очень трудно интуитивно понять эти результаты. 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. Подумайте об этом сами: многие из вас считают, что если вы пойдете продлевать лицензию завтра и обратитесь в DMV, и вы столкнетесь с одной из этих форм, это действительно изменит ваше собственное поведение? Очень, очень сложно думать, что вы повлияете на нас. Мы можем сказать: «О, эти забавные европейцы, конечно, это повлияет на них. "But when it comes to us,we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers 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. «Но когда дело доходит до нас, у нас такое ощущение, что мы сидим за рулем, у нас такое чувство, что мы все контролируем и принимаем решение, что очень трудно даже принять идею, что мы на самом деле есть иллюзия принятия решения, а не фактическое решение. Now, you might say,"These are decisions we don't care about. Agora, você pode dizer: "Essas são decisões com as quais não nos importamos. Теперь вы можете сказать: «Это решения, которые нас не волнуют. "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? «Фактически, по определению, это решения о том, что произойдет с нами после нашей смерти. Как мы можем заботиться о чем-то меньшем, чем то, что происходит после нашей смерти? Так стандартный экономист, тот, кто верит в рациональность, сказал бы: "Знаешь что? 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. O custo de levantar o lápis e marcar um V é maior que o possível benefício da decisão, e é por isso que obtemos esse efeito. Стоимость поднятия карандаша и маркировки буквы V выше, чем возможная выгода от решения, поэтому мы получаем этот эффект. "But, in fact, it's not because it's easy.It's not because it's trivial. "Mas, na verdade, não é fácil porque não é 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. É porque nos importamos. É difícil e é complexo. E é tão complexo que não sabemos o que fazer. Это потому, что нам не все равно. Это сложно и сложно. И это настолько сложно, что мы не знаем, что делать. И поскольку мы не знаем, что делать, мы просто выбираем то, что было выбрано для нас. 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. Vou dar mais um exemplo para você. Isso é de um artigo de Redelmeier e Schaefer. E eles disseram: "Bem, esse efeito também acontece com especialistas, pessoas bem remuneradas, especialistas em suas decisões. muito. Я приведу вам еще один пример. Это из статьи Редельмейера и Шефера. Они сказали: «Ну, этот эффект также случается с экспертами, людьми, которым хорошо платят, экспертами в своих решениях, делайте это много. "And they basically took a group of physicians.And they presented to them a case study of a patient.Here is a patient. «И они в основном взяли группу врачей. И они представили им исследование пациента. Вот пациент. 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. Он 67-летний фермер. Он какое-то время страдает от боли в правом бедре. Затем они сказали врачу: «Несколько недель назад вы решили, что с этим пациентом ничего не помогает. Все эти лекарства, ничего. Кажется, работает. Итак, вы направили пациента на заместительную терапию тазобедренного сустава. 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? "Então, o paciente está no caminho de substituir o quadril. Depois, disseram à metade dos médicos:" Ontem você analisou o caso do paciente e percebeu que se esqueceu de tentar um medicamento. Você não experimentou o ibuprofeno. O que você faz? «Итак, пациент находится на пути к замене бедра. Затем они сказали половине врачей, они сказали:« Вчера вы рассмотрели случай пациента и поняли, что забыли попробовать одно лекарство. Вы не пробовали ибупрофен. Чем ты занимаешься? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen?Or do you let them go and have hip replacement? Você puxa o paciente de volta e tenta o ibuprofeno ou deixa-o ir e faz a substituição da anca? Вы тянете пациента назад и пробуете ибупрофен или отпускаете его и делаете замену бедра? "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. "Что ж, хорошая новость заключается в том, что в этом случае большинство врачей решили вытащить пациента и попробовать ибупрофен. Очень хорошо для врачей. 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. Другая группа врачей сказала: «Вчера, когда вы просматривали случай, вы обнаружили, что есть два лекарства, которые вы еще не пробовали, ибупрофен и пироксикам. "And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. «И они сказали:« У вас есть два лекарства, которые вы еще не пробовали. What do you do?You let them go. Что вы делаете? Вы отпускаете их. Or you pull them back.And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Или вы их оттягиваете, а если оттягиваете, пробуете ли вы ибупрофен или пироксикам? Which one? "Now think of it. "А теперь подумай об этом. 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. Это решение позволяет легко разрешить пациенту продолжить замену тазобедренного сустава, но втягивание их обратно внезапно становится более сложным. Есть еще одно решение. Что происходит теперь? Большинство врачей теперь предпочитают отпускать пациента к Замена тазобедренного сустава. Надеюсь, это беспокоит вас, кстати ... (Смех), когда вы идете к врачу. Дело в том, что ни один врач никогда не скажет: «Пироксикам, ибупрофен, замена тазобедренного сустава. Давайте сделаем замену бедра. "But the moment you set this as the default it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing. "Но в тот момент, когда вы устанавливаете это по умолчанию, он имеет огромную власть над всем, что люди в конечном итоге делают. 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? Я дам вам еще пару примеров иррационального принятия решений. Представьте, что я даю вам выбор: вы хотите поехать на выходные в Рим? Все расходы оплачены: гостиница, транспорт, еда, завтрак, континентальный завтрак, Все. Или выходные в Париже? Теперь выходные в Париже, выходные в Риме - это разные вещи; у них другая еда, другая культура, другое искусство. А теперь представьте, что я добавил выбор в набор, который никому не нужен. Я сказал: «Выходные в Риме, выходные в Париже или ваша машина угнана? "(Laughter)It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen,in this set, influence anything? "(Смех) Это забавная идея, потому что почему угон вашей машины в этом наборе может на что-то повлиять? (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. (Смех) Но что, если возможность украсть вашу машину была не совсем такой. Что, если бы это была поездка в Рим, все расходы оплачены, транспорт, завтрак, но не включает кофе утром. Если вы хотите кофе. вы должны заплатить за это сами. 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. Это два евро 50. Теперь в некотором смысле, учитывая, что вы можете выпить Рим с кофе, зачем вам Рим без кофе? Это все равно, что украсть вашу машину. It's an inferior option.But guess what happened. Это худший вариант, но угадайте, что случилось. The moment you add Rome without coffee,Rome with coffee becomes more popular. В тот момент, когда вы добавляете Рим без кофе, Рим с кофе становится более популярным. 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. И люди выбирают его. Тот факт, что у вас есть Рим без кофе, делает Рим с кофе лучше, и не только Рим без кофе - даже лучше, чем Париж. (Laughter)

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. Вот два примера этого принципа: это была реклама The Economist несколько лет назад, в которой нам предлагалось три варианта: онлайн-подписка за 59 долларов, подписка на печатную версию за 125 или вы могли получить и то, и другое за 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. (Смех) Я посмотрел на это и позвонил в The Economist, попытался выяснить, о чем они думают, и передавали меня от одного человека к другому, пока в конце концов я не нашел человека, который отвечал за сайт, и я позвонил им. And they went to check what was going on.The next thing I know, the ad is gone. И они пошли посмотреть, что происходит. Следующее, что я помню, реклама исчезла. And no explanation. И никаких объяснений.

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? Поэтому я решил провести со мной эксперимент, который мне бы очень хотелось провести в The Economist. Я взял его и дал 100 студентам MIT. Я сказал: «Что бы вы выбрали? "These are the market share. «Это доля рынка. Most people wanted the combo deal.Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option.That means our students can read. Большинство людей хотели комбинированного предложения. К счастью, никто не хотел доминирующего варианта. Это означает, что наши студенты умеют читать. (Laughter)But now if you have an option that nobody wants,you can take it off. (Смех) Но теперь, если у вас есть вариант, который никому не нужен, вы можете его снять. Right?So I printed another version of this,where I eliminated the middle option.I gave it to another 100 students. Так что я напечатал еще одну версию этого, в которой я исключил средний вариант и дал ее еще 100 студентам. Here is what happens.Now the most popular option became the least popular.And the least popular became the most popular. Вот что происходит: теперь самый популярный вариант стал наименее популярным, а наименее популярный стал самым популярным.

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. То, что происходило, было бесполезным вариантом посередине, бесполезным в том смысле, что он никому не нужен, но он не был бесполезным в том смысле, что помогал людям понять, чего они хотят. в середине, где была только печать за 125, печать и Интернет за 125 выглядели как фантастическая сделка, и, как следствие, люди выбрали ее. Общая идея здесь, кстати, заключается в том, что мы на самом деле не Мы хорошо знаем свои предпочтения, а поскольку мы не знаем своих предпочтений так хорошо, мы подвержены всем этим влияниям внешних сил: значениям по умолчанию, конкретным вариантам, которые нам представляются, и так далее. 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? Еще один пример: люди считают, что когда мы имеем дело с физическим влечением, мы видим кого-то и сразу понимаем, нравится он нам или нет, нравится он нам или нет. Вот почему у нас есть эти четырехминутные свидания. Проведите этот эксперимент с людьми. Я покажу вам графические изображения людей, а не реальных людей. Эксперимент проводился с людьми. Я показал некоторым людям фотографию Тома и фотографию Джерри. Я сказал: «Кого вы хотите? Дата? 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. «Но для половины людей я добавил уродливую версию Джерри. Я взял Photoshop и сделал Джерри чуть менее привлекательным. (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. (Смех) Другие люди, я добавил уродливую версию Тома. И вопрос был в том, помогут ли уродливый Джерри и уродливый Том своим более привлекательным братьям? Ответ был абсолютно положительным. Когда некрасивый Джерри был рядом, Джерри был популярен. Когда был уродливый Том, Том был популярен.

(Laughter)

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? Isso, é claro, tem duas implicações muito claras para a vida em geral. Se você alguma vez pula bar, quem você quer levar consigo? Это, конечно, имеет два очень очевидных значения для жизни в целом: если вы когда-нибудь ходите по барам, кого вы хотите взять с собой? (Laughter)You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Смех) Вы хотите немного более уродливую версию себя. (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. (Смех) Второй момент, конечно же, заключается в том, что если кто-то еще приглашает вас, вы знаете, что они думают о вас. (Laughter)Now you're getting it. What is the general point?The general point is that when we think about economics we have this beautiful view of human nature. Общий смысл в том, что когда мы думаем об экономике, мы имеем прекрасный взгляд на человеческую природу. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! Как благородно рассудком! "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. "Temos essa visão de nós mesmos, dos outros. A perspectiva da economia comportamental é um pouco menos generosa para as pessoas. De fato, em termos médicos, essa é a nossa visão." «У нас такой взгляд на самих себя, на других. Перспектива поведенческой экономики немного менее щедра к людям. Фактически, с медицинской точки зрения, это наша точка зрения. (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? (Risos) Mas há um lado positivo. O lado positivo é, na minha opinião, o tipo de razão pela qual a economia comportamental é interessante e empolgante. Somos Superman? (Смех) Но есть и серебряная подкладка. Я думаю, что это своего рода причина того, что поведенческая экономика интересна и увлекательна. Мы Супермен? Or are we Homer Simpson? Ou somos Homer Simpson?

When it comes to building the physical world,we kind of understand our limitations.We build steps. Quando se trata de construir o mundo físico, meio que entendemos nossas limitações. Construímos etapas. 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 health care and retirement and stock markets,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. (Смех) Мы понимаем наши ограничения и строим вокруг них, но по какой-то причине, когда дело доходит до ментального мира, когда мы проектируем такие вещи, как здравоохранение, пенсионное обеспечение и фондовые рынки, мы почему-то забываем об этой идее. думаю, что если бы мы понимали наши когнитивные ограничения так же, как мы понимаем наши физические ограничения, даже если они не смотрят нам в лицо таким же образом, мы могли бы создать лучший мир. И это, я думаю, надежда на эту вещь. Thank you very much.

(Applause)