演讲题目：The psychology behind irrational decisions

演讲简介：

从纯粹的经济学理论来看，我们常常做出非理性的决定----就是说我们的决定不会产生最好的结果，为什么会这样？原因是我们不能正确处理数字和概率吗？还是背后另有心理学机制？



中英文字幕

Let's say you're on a game show.

假设您正在参加一个游戏节目。

You've already earned $1000 in the first round when you land on the bonus space.

当您进入奖金空间时，您已经在第一轮中赚取了1000美元。

Now, you have a choice.

现在，你有一个选择。

You can either take a $500 bonus guaranteed or you can flip a coin.

您可以获得500美元的奖金保证，也可以抛硬币。

If it's heads, you win $1000 bonus.

如果是正面，您将赢得1000美元奖金。

If it's tails, you get no bonus at all.

如果是反面，你一点奖金都没有。

In the second round, you've earned $2000 when you land on the penalty space.

在第二轮中，当你落在点球空间时，你就赢得了2000美元。

Now you have another choice.

现在您有另一个选择。

You can either take a $500 loss, or try your luck at the coin flip.

您可以损失500美元，也可以在掷硬币时碰碰运气。

If it's heads, you lose nothing, but if it's tails, you lose $1000 instead.

如果是正面，你不会损失任何东西，但如果是反面，你会损失1000美元。

If you're like most people, you probably chose to take the guaranteed bonus in the first round and flip the coin in the second round.

如果您和大多数人一样，您可能选择在第一轮领取保证奖金，并在第二轮掷硬币。

But if you think about it, this makes no sense.

但如果你仔细想想，这是没有意义的。

The odds and outcomes in both rounds are exactly the same.

两轮的赔率和结果完全相同。

So why does the second round seem much scarier?

那么为什么第二轮看起来更可怕呢？

The answer lies in a phenomenon known as loss aversion.

答案在于一种称为损失厌恶的现象。

Under rational economic theory, our decisions should follow a simple mathematical equation that weighs the level of risk against the amount at stake.

根据理性经济理论，我们的决策应该遵循一个简单的数学方程，权衡风险水平与风险金额。

But studies have found that for many people,

但研究发现，对于许多人来说，

the negative psychological impact we feel from losing something is about twice as strong as the positive impact of gaining the same thing.

失去某样东西所感受到的负面心理影响大约是获得同样东西所产生的积极影响的两倍。

Loss aversion is one cognitive bias that arises from heuristics,

损失厌恶是一种源于启发式思维的认知偏见，

problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition rather than careful analysis.

解决问题的方法基于以前的经验和直觉，而不是仔细的分析。

And these mental shortcuts can lead to irrational decisions, not like falling in love or bungee jumping off a cliff,

这些心理捷径可能会导致非理性的决定，而不是像坠入爱河或从悬崖上跳下来，

but logical fallacies that can easily be proven wrong.

但逻辑谬误很容易被证明是错误的。

Situations involving probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics.

众所周知，涉及概率的情况对于应用启发式方法来说是不好的。

For instance, say you were to roll a die with four green faces and two red faces twenty times.

例如，假设你要将一个有四个绿面和两个红面的骰子掷二十次。

You can choose one of the following sequences of rolls, and if it shows up, you'll win $25.

您可以选择以下滚动序列之一，如果出现，您将赢得25美元。

Which would you pick?

你会选哪个

In one study, 65% of the participants who were all college students chose sequence B even though A is shorter and contained within B, in other words, more likely.

在一项研究中，65%的大学生参与者选择了序列B，尽管A更短并且包含在B中，换句话说，更有可能。

This is what's called a conjunction fallacy.

这就是所谓的合取谬误。

Here, we expect to see more green rolls, so our brains can trick us into picking the less likely option.

在这里，我们希望看到更多的绿色卷，所以我们的大脑可以欺骗我们选择不太可能的选择。

Heuristics are also terrible at dealing with numbers in general.

启发式方法在处理一般数字方面也很糟糕。

In one example, students were split into two groups.

在一个例子中，学生被分成两组。

The first group was asked whether Mahatma Gandhi died before or after age 9, while the second was asked whether he died before or after age 140.

第一组被问及圣雄甘地是在9岁之前还是之后去世的，而第二组被问及他是在140岁之前还是之后去世的。

Both numbers were obviously way off, but when the students were then asked to guess the actual age at which he died,

这两个数字显然相差甚远，但当学生们被要求猜测他的实际死亡年龄时，

the first group's answers averaged to 50

第一组的答案平均为50

while the second group's averaged to 67.

而第二组平均为67分。

Even though the clearly wrong information in the initial questions should have been irrelevant, it still affected the students' estimates.

尽管最初问题中明显错误的信息本应无关紧要，但它仍然影响了学生的估计。

This is an example of the anchoring effect, and it's often used in marketing and negotiations to raise the prices that people are willing to pay.

这是锚定效应的一个例子，它经常用于市场营销和谈判，以提高人们愿意支付的价格。

So, if heuristics lead to all these wrong decisions, why do we even have them?

那么，如果启发式方法导致了所有这些错误的决定，我们为什么还要做出它们呢？

Well, because they can be quite effective.

嗯，因为它们可以非常有效。

For most of human history, survival depended on making quick decisions with limited information.

在人类历史的大部分时间里，生存依赖于在有限的信息下做出快速决策。

When there's no time to logically analyze all the possibilities, heuristics can sometimes save our lives.

当没有时间逻辑分析所有可能性时，启发式方法有时可以拯救我们的生命。

But today's environment requires far more complex decision-making, and these decisions are more biased by unconscious factors than we think,

但今天的环境需要更复杂的决策，这些决策比我们想象的更容易受到无意识因素的影响，

affecting everything from health and education to finance and criminal justice.

影响从健康和教育到金融和刑事司法的各个方面。

We can't just shut off our brain's heuristics, but we can learn to be aware of them.

我们不能仅仅关闭大脑的启发式思维，但我们可以学会意识到它们。

When you come to a situation involving numbers, probability, or multiple details,

当你遇到涉及数字、概率或多个细节的情况时，

pause for a second and consider that the intuitive answer might not be the right one after all.

停顿一下，考虑一下直觉的答案可能根本不是正确的。