I'm going to talk to you about some stuff that's in this book of mine that I hope will resonate with other things you've already heard, and I'll try to make some connections myself, in case you miss them.
Ma räägin teile üht-teist sellest, mis mu raamatus kirjas on, ja ma loodan et see haakub teiste asjadega, mida te juba kuulnud olete, ja ma katsun ise mõningasi seoseid välja tuua, juhuks kui teil need märkamata jäävad. Ma tahaksin alustada mõttega, mida ma nimetan "ametlikuks dogmaks".
But I want to start with what I call the "official dogma." The official dogma of what? The official dogma of all Western industrial societies. And the official dogma runs like this: if we are interested in maximizing the welfare of our citizens, the way to do that is to maximize individual freedom. The reason for this is both that freedom is, in and of itself, good, valuable, worthwhile, essential to being human, and because if people have freedom, then each of us can act on our own to do the things that will maximize our welfare, and no one has to decide on our behalf. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice.
Mille ametlik dogma? Kõikide lääne tööstusühiskondade ametlik dogma. Ja see ametlik dogma kõlab nii: kui me tahame oma kodanike heaolu maksimumini viia, siis parim viis seda teha on suurendada üksikisiku vabadust äärmuseni. Põhjendus on see, et vabadus on iseenesest hea, väärtuslik, püüdlemist väärt, inimloomusele omane. Ja kui inimestel on vabadus, siis võib igaüks meist ise teha seda, mis kasvatab enim meie heaolu, ja keegi ei pea meie eest otsustama. Et vabadus oleks võimalikult suur, tuleb laiendada valikuvõimalust.
The more choice people have, the more freedom they have, and the more freedom they have, the more welfare they have. This, I think, is so deeply embedded in the water supply that it wouldn't occur to anyone to question it. And it's also deeply embedded in our lives. I'll give you some examples of what modern progress has made possible for us.
Mida rohkem valikuid inimestel on, seda vabamad nad on, ning mida vabamad nad on, seda suurem on nende heaolu. Minu arust on säärane mõtlemine niivõrd üldlevinud, et kellelgi ei tuleks pähegi seda küsimärgi alla seada. Ja samuti on see sööbinud sügavale igapäevaellu. Ma toon teile mõned näited, mida kaasaegne progress meile võimaldanud on.
This is my supermarket. Not such a big one. I want to say just a word about salad dressing. A hundred seventy-five salad dressings in my supermarket, if you don't count the 10 extra-virgin olive oils and 12 balsamic vinegars you could buy to make a very large number of your own salad dressings, in the off-chance that none of the 175 the store has on offer suit you. So this is what the supermarket is like. And then you go to the consumer electronics store to set up a stereo system -- speakers, CD player, tape player, tuner, amplifier -- and in this one single consumer electronics store, there are that many stereo systems. We can construct six and a half million different stereo systems out of the components that are on offer in one store.
See on minu supermarket. Mitte just eriti suur. Ma tahaksin öelda paar sõna salatikastme kohta. Minu supermarketis on 175 sorti salatikastet, kui kastmete hulka mitte lugeda 10 eri sorti esmapressitud oliiviõli ja 12 sorti palsamäädikat, mida sul on võimalus osta et teha endale ise väga paljusid erinevaid salatikastmeid, juhuks kui need 175, mida poel pakkuda on, sulle ei sobi. Nii et selline on supermarket. Ja siis lähed sa koduelektroonika poodi, et oma stereosüsteem üles seada -- kõlarid, CD-mängija, kassetimängija, raadio, võimendi. Ja selles ühes ainsas koduelektroonika poes on nii palju stereosüsteeme. Kuus ja pool millionit erinevat stereosüsteemi on võimalik kokku panna nendest komponentidest, mis selles ühes poes müügil on.
You've got to admit that's a lot of choice. In other domains -- the world of communications. There was a time, when I was a boy, when you could get any kind of telephone service you wanted, as long as it came from Ma Bell. You rented your phone, you didn't buy it. One consequence of that, by the way, is that the phone never broke. And those days are gone. We now have an almost unlimited variety of phones, especially in the world of cell phones. These are cell phones of the future. My favorite is the middle one -- the MP3 player, nose hair trimmer, and crème brûlée torch. And if --
Te peate tunnistama, et see on väga suur valik. Võtame teise ala -- kommunikatsioon. Oli aeg, mil mina olin alles väikene poiss, kui sa võisid võtta ükskõik millise telefoniteenuse, peaasi et see tuli firmalt Ma Bell. Telefon renditi, mitte ei ostetud. Selle üks tagajärg oli muide see, et telefonid ei läinud kunagi katki. Ja need päevad on möödas. Nüüd on meil piiramatu valik telefone, eriti mobiiltelefone. Need on tuleviku mobiiltelefonid. Minu lemmik on see keskmine -- tal on MP3 mängija, ninakarvade trimmer ja creme brulee tõrvik. Ja kui seda teie kohalikkudes poodides veel müügil pole,
(Laughter)
if by some chance you haven't seen that in your store yet, you can rest assured that one day soon, you will. And what this does is it leads people to walk into their stores, asking this question. And do you know what the answer to this question now is? The answer is "no." It is not possible to buy a cell phone that doesn't do too much.
siis olge rahulikud, küll ta üsna varsti ka müügile tuleb. Ja mis juhtub, on see, et inimesed tulevad poodi ja küsivad aina ühte küsimust. Ja kas te teate, mis selle küsimuse vastus hetkel on? Vastus on "Ei". Ei ole võimalik osta mobiiltelefoni, millel poleks liiga palju funktsioone.
So, in other aspects of life that are much more significant than buying things, the same explosion of choice is true. Health care. It is no longer the case in the United States that you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you what to do. Instead, you go to the doctor, and the doctor tells you, "Well, we could do A, or we could do B. A has these benefits and these risks. B has these benefits and these risks. What do you want to do?" And you say, "Doc, what should I do?" And the doc says, "A has these benefits and risks, and B has these benefits and risks. What do you want to do?" And you say, "If you were me, Doc, what would you do?" And the doc says, "But I'm not you." And the result is -- we call it "patient autonomy," which makes it sound like a good thing, but what it really is is a shifting of the burden and the responsibility for decision-making from somebody who knows something -- namely, the doctor -- to somebody who knows nothing and is almost certainly sick and thus, not in the best shape to be making decisions -- namely, the patient. There's enormous marketing of prescription drugs to people like you and me, which, if you think about it, makes no sense at all, since we can't buy them. Why do they market to us if we can't buy them? The answer is that they expect us to call our doctors the next morning and ask for our prescriptions to be changed.
Elu teistes aspektides, mis on tähtsamad kui asjade ostmine, on toimunud samasugune valikute plahvatuslik kasv. Tervishoid -- USAs ei ole enam nii, et lähed arsti juurde ja arst ütleb sulle, mida teha. Nüüd on hoopis nii, et lähed arsti juurde, ja arst ütleb sulle, et noh, võime teha variandi A või variandi B. A-l on sellised plusspooled, sellised riskid. B-l on sellised plusspooled, sellised riskid. Kumba te soovite? Ja sina ütled, "Doktor, mida ma peaksin tegema?" Ja doktor ütleb, et A-l on sellised plussid ja miinused, B-l selllised plussid ja miinused. Kumba te eelistate? Ja sina ütled: "Kui teie oleksite minu asemel, doktor, siis kumma te valiksite?" Ja arst ütleb: "Aga mina ei ole ju teie." Selle tulemuse nimi on "patsiendi autonoomia", mis kõlab nagu oleks see midagi head. Aga tegelikult on see koorma ja otsustusvastutuse ümbertõstmine inimeselt, kes asjast midagi jagab -- justnimelt arstilt -- inimesele, kes ei tea midagi, ning kes on peaaegu kindlasti haige ning seega mitte kõige paremas vormis otsuste langetamiseks -- nimelt patsiendile. Ameerikas reklaamitakse meeletult retseptiravimeid inimestele nagu sina ja mina, mis, kui natuke järele mõelda, on täiesti ebaloogiline, sest me ei saa neid ju ilma retseptita osta. Miks nad neid meile reklaamivad, kui me neid osta ei saa? Vastus on selles, et nad loodavad, et me helistame kohe hommikul oma arstile ja nõuame, et ta meile uue retsepti kirjutaks.
Something as dramatic as our identity has now become a matter of choice, as this slide is meant to indicate. We don't inherit an identity; we get to invent it. And we get to reinvent ourselves as often as we like. And that means that every day, when you wake up in the morning, you have to decide what kind of person you want to be. With respect to marriage and family: there was a time when the default assumption that almost everyone had is that you got married as soon as you could, and then you started having kids as soon as you could. The only real choice was who, not when, and not what you did after.
Millestki nii tähelepanuväärsest nagu identiteet on nüüdseks saanud valik, nagu see slaid on mõeldud näitama. Me ei päri oma identiteeti, me saame selle ise leiutada. Me tohime ennast muuta nii tihti kui tahame. See tähendab, et igal hommikul ärgates pead sa otsustama, milline inimene sa olla tahad. Rääkides abielust ja perekonnast, kunagi oli aeg, kui peaaegu kõik eeldasid, et sa abiellud niipea kui saad, ning seejärel hakkad lapsi saama niipea kui võimalik. Ainus tõeline valik oli - kellega?, mitte millal, ega mitte mida sa pärast tegid.
Nowadays, everything is very much up for grabs. I teach wonderfully intelligent students, and I assign 20 percent less work than I used to. And it's not because they're less smart, and it's not because they're less diligent. It's because they are preoccupied, asking themselves, "Should I get married or not? Should I get married now? Should I get married later? Should I have kids first or a career first?" All of these are consuming questions. And they're going to answer these questions, whether or not it means not doing all the work I assign and not getting a good grade in my courses. And indeed they should. These are important questions to answer.
Tänapäeval on kõik variandid lahtised. Ma õpetan imeliselt tarku üliõpilasi, aga annan neile 20 protsenti vähem ülesandeid kui varem. Ning seda mitte sellepärast, et nad oleksid vähem targad, ega mitte sellepärast, et nad oleksid vähem töökad. Hoopis sellepärast, et nende aeg kulub endalt küsimise peale: "Kas abielluda või mitte? Kas abielluda praegu? Kas abielluda hiljem? Kas enne lapsed või karjäär?" Kõik need küsimused nõuavad süvenemist. Ja õpilased üritavad neile küsimustele vastuseid leida, ükskõik kas neile jääb aega teha ülesandeid, mida ma neile annan, või kas nad saavad minu aines hea hinde. Ja tõepoolest, nii nad toimima peavadki. Need on tähtsad küsimused.
Work. We are blessed, as Carl was pointing out, with the technology that enables us to work every minute of every day from any place on the planet -- except the Randolph Hotel.
Töö -- meid on õnnistatud, nagu Carl mainis -- tehnoloogiaga, mis võimaldab meil iga minut iga päev igast planeedi nurgast töötada -- välja arvatud Randolphi hotellist.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
(Applause)
There is one corner, by the way, that I'm not going to tell anybody about, where the WiFi actually works. I'm not telling you about it, because I want to use it. So what this means, this incredible freedom of choice we have with respect to work, is that we have to make a decision, again and again and again, about whether we should or shouldn't be working. We can go to watch our kid play soccer, and we have our cell phone on one hip and our Blackberry on our other hip, and our laptop, presumably, on our laps. And even if they're all shut off, every minute that we're watching our kid mutilate a soccer game, we are also asking ourselves, "Should I answer this cell phone call? Should I respond to this email? Should I draft this letter?" And even if the answer to the question is "no," it's certainly going to make the experience of your kid's soccer game very different than it would've been.
Muideks üks nurk siiski on, kus WiFi töötab, aga ma ei ütle kellelegi, kus. Ma ei ütle, sest ma tahan seda ise kasutada. Nii et see meeletu valikuvabadus töö osas tähendab, et me peame otsustama, uuesti ja uuesti ja uuesti, kas me peame või ei pea antud hetkel töötama. Me võime minna oma lapse jalgpallimängu vaatama, nii et mobiiltelefon ripub ühel puusal, Blackberry ripub teisel puusal, ja sülearvuti, eeldatavasti, on süles. Ja isegi kui nad on kõik välja lülitatud, siis iga minut, kui me vaatame, kuidas meie laps jalgpalli mängida koperdab, küsime endalt ka: "Kas ma peaksin selle kõne vastu võtma? Kas ma peaksin sellele e-mailile vastama? Kas ma peaksin selle kirja mustandi valmis tegema?" Ja isegi kui vastus küsimusele on "ei", siis ikkagi teeb see su lapse jalgpallimängu vaatamise elamuse hoopis teistsuguseks, kui see oleks olnud.
So everywhere we look, big things and small things, material things and lifestyle things, life is a matter of choice. And the world we used to live in looked like this.
Ükskõik kuhu me ka ei vaata, suured asjad ja väiksed asjad, materiaalsed asjad ja elustiili asjad, elu on valiku küsimus. Ja maailm, kus me vanasti elasime, nägi välja selline.
[Well, actually, they are written in stone.] That is to say, there were some choices, but not everything was a matter of choice. The world we now live in looks like this.
See tähendab, mõned valikud küll olid, aga mitte kõik polnud valikuline. Ja maailm, kus ma nüüd elame, näeb välja selline.
[The Ten Commandments Do-It-Yourself Kit]
Küsimus on, kas see on hea või halb?
And the question is: Is this good news or bad news? And the answer is "yes."
Ning vastus on jah.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
We all know what's good about it, so I'm going to talk about what's bad about it. All of this choice has two effects, two negative effects on people. One effect, paradoxically, is that it produces paralysis rather than liberation. With so many options to choose from, people find it very difficult to choose at all. I'll give you one very dramatic example of this, a study that was done of investments in voluntary retirement plans. A colleague of mine got access to investment records from Vanguard, the gigantic mutual fund company, of about a million employees and about 2,000 different workplaces. What she found is that for every 10 mutual funds the employer offered, rate of participation went down two percent. You offer 50 funds -- 10 percent fewer employees participate than if you only offer five. Why? Because with 50 funds to choose from, it's so damn hard to decide which fund to choose, that you'll just put it off till tomorrow, and then tomorrow and then tomorrow and tomorrow, and, of course, tomorrow never comes. Understand that not only does this mean that people are going to have to eat dog food when they retire because they don't have enough money put away, it also means that making the decision is so hard that they pass up significant matching money from the employer. By not participating, they are passing up as much as 5,000 dollars a year from the employer, who would happily match their contribution.
Me kõik teame, mis selles head on, nii et ma räägin sellest, mis selles halba on. Valikuvabadusel on kaks tagajärge, kaks negatiivset tagajärge inimestele. Üks tagajärg, paradoksaalsel kombel, on see, et see põhjustab halvatust, mitte vabanemist. Kui valida on nii paljude variantite vahel, siis on inimestel raske üleüldse midagi valida. Ma toon teile üheks väga dramaatiliseks näiteks uuringu, kus vaadati vabatahtlike pensionikindlustuste investeeringuid. Ühel mu kolleegil oli ligipääs investeerimistoimikutele Vanguardis, see on üks hiigelsuur investeerimisfirma, kus olid andmed miljoni töötaja kohta umbes 2000 erinevalt töökohalt. Ja ta leidis, et iga kümne investeerimisfondi kohta, mida tööandja pakkus, langes osalusprotsent kahe protsendi võrra. Kui pakuti 50 fondi -- 10 protsenti vähem töötajaid osales kui siis, kui pakuti ainult viite. Miks? Sest kui valida on 50 fondi vahel, siis on nii neetult raske otsustada, milline fond võtta, et sa lükkad otsustamise homseks. Ja siis homseks, ja siis homseks. ja homseks, ja homseks, ja loomulikult homset ei tulegi. Pange tähele, et see tähendab mitte ainult seda, et inimesed peavad pensionile jäädes koeratoitu sööma hakkama, kuna neil ei ole piisavalt raha kõrvale pandud, vaid see tähendab ka seda, et otsustamine on nii raske, et nad loobuvad suurest hulgas rahast, mida tööandja muidu nende fondi panustaks. Mitte osaledes loobuvad nad kuni 5000 dollarist aastas, mille tööandja neile muidu rõõmsalt isiklikule panusele lisaks maksaks.
So paralysis is a consequence of having too many choices. And I think it makes the world look like this.
Nii et halvatus on liiga rohkete valikute tagajärg. Ja see muudab maailma selliseks.
[And lastly, for all eternity, French, bleu cheese or ranch?]
(Naermine)
(Laughter)
You really want to get the decision right if it's for all eternity, right? You don't want to pick the wrong mutual fund or wrong salad dressing. So that's one effect. The second effect is that, even if we manage to overcome the paralysis and make a choice, we end up less satisfied with the result of the choice than we would be if we had fewer options to choose from. And there are several reasons for this. One of them is, with a lot of different salad dressings to choose from, if you buy one and it's not perfect -- and what salad dressing is? -- it's easy to imagine that you could've made a different choice that would've been better. And what happens is, this imagined alternative induces you to regret the decision you made, and this regret subtracts from the satisfaction you get out of the decision you made, even if it was a good decision. The more options there are, the easier it is to regret anything at all that is disappointing about the option that you chose.
Kui miski jääb terveks igavikuks paika, siis sa tahad ju langetada õige otsuse, eks? Sa ei taha valida valet investeerimisfondi, ega isegi mitte valet salatikastet. See on siis esimene tulemus. Teine tagajärg on see, et isegi kui suudame halvatusest jagu saada ning valiku langetada, siis me oleme oma valikuga vähem rahul kui me oleksime siis, kui valikuvariante oleks vähem. Ning sellel on mitu põhjust. Üks on see, et kui valida on nii paljude salatikastmete vahel, siis kui sa ühe ostad, ja see pole täiuslik -- ja noh, milline salatikaste oleks? -- on lihtne ette kujutada, et sa oleksid võinud langetada mõne teise valiku, mis oleks olnud parem. Ja mis juhtub, on see, et alternatiivide ette kujutamine paneb su oma otsust kahetsema, ja see kahetsus vähendab su rahulolu, isegi kui see oli hea otsus. Mida rohkem on valikuid, seda kergem on ükskõik mida kahetseda, mis sulle su valiku juures pettumust valmistab.
Second, what economists call "opportunity costs." Dan Gilbert made a big point this morning of talking about how much the way in which we value things depends on what we compare them to. Well, when there are lots of alternatives to consider, it's easy to imagine the attractive features of alternatives that you reject that make you less satisfied with the alternative that you've chosen. Here's an example.
Teiseks asi, mida majandusteadlased nimetavad alternatiivkuluks. Dan Gilbert esitas täna hommikul olulise mõtte, kui ta rääkis, kui palju oleneb asja väärtus meie silmis sellest, millega me seda võrdleme. Kui kaaluda tuleb paljusid alternatiive, siis on lihtne ette kujutada häid külgi nende asjade juures, mida sa lõpuks ei vali, aga mille tulemusena sa oled oma valikuga pärast vähem rahul.
[I can't stop thinking about those other available parking spaces on W 85th Street]
Siin on näide. Ma vabandan nende ees, kes pole New Yorkist.
If you're not a New Yorker, I apologize. Here's what you're supposed to be thinking. Here's this couple on the Hamptons. Very expensive real estate. Gorgeous beach. Beautiful day. They have it all to themselves. What could be better? "Damn it," this guy is thinking, "It's August. Everybody in my Manhattan neighborhood is away. I could be parking right in front of my building." And he spends two weeks nagged by the idea that he is missing the opportunity, day after day, to have a great parking space.
(Naermine) Aga sa peaksid mõtlema hoopis nii. Siin on paarike Hamptonsi kuurortis. Väga kallis kinnisvara. Fantastiline rand. Imeilus päev. Kõik on nende päralt. Mis võiks veel parem olla? "No kurat," mõtleb mees, "On august. Kogu mu Manhattani naabruskond on puhkusel. Ma saaksin praegu vabalt oma maja ees parkida." Ja ta veedab kaks nädalat piinatuna mõttest, et ta jääb ilma võimalusest, päev päeva järel, saada suurepärane parkimiskoht.
(Laughter)
Alternatiivkulu vähendab meie rahulolu oma valikutega,
Opportunity costs subtract from the satisfaction that we get out of what we choose, even when what we choose is terrific. And the more options there are to consider, the more attractive features of these options are going to be reflected by us as opportunity costs.
isegi kui meie valik on suurepärane. Ja mida rohkem variante kaaluda tuleb, seda rohkem nende variantide head küljed meie alternatiivkulu kergitavad.
Here's another example.
Siin on veel üks näide.
(Laughter)
Now, this cartoon makes a lot of points. It makes points about living in the moment as well, and probably about doing things slowly. But one point it makes is that whenever you're choosing one thing, you're choosing not to do other things, and those other things may have lots of attractive features, and it's going to make what you're doing less attractive.
Sellel koomiksil on mitu iva. Üks iva on elada üks hetk korraga, ja teha asju aeglaselt. Aga teine point on see, et millal iganes sa ühe asja valid, jäävad sul teised asjad tegemata. Ja neil teistel asjadel võib olla mitu meeldivat omadust, ning see teeb selle, millega sa tegeled, vähem meeldivaks. Kolmandaks: ootuste kerkimine.
Third: escalation of expectations. This hit me when I went to replace my jeans. I wear jeans almost all the time. There was a time when jeans came in one flavor, and you bought them, and they fit like crap. They were incredibly uncomfortable, and if you wore them long enough and washed them enough times, they started to feel OK. I went to replace my jeans after years of wearing these old ones. I said, "I want a pair of jeans. Here's my size." And the shopkeeper said, "Do you want slim fit, easy fit, relaxed fit? You want button fly or zipper fly? You want stonewashed or acid-washed? Do you want them distressed? Do you want boot cut, tapered?" Blah, blah, blah on and on he went. My jaw dropped. And after I recovered, I said, "I want the kind that used to be the only kind."
See jõudis mulle kohale, kui ma läksin uusi teksaseid ostma. Ma kannan peaaegu kogu aeg teksapükse. Ja oli aeg, kus teksapükse oli ainult ühte sorti, ja sa ostsid nad, nad ei tahtnud sugugi istuda, ja olid metsikult ebamugavad, ning kui sa neid piisavalt kaua kandisd ning piisavalt palju pesid, siis muutusid nad normaalseks. Ühesõnaga, ma läksin uusi teksaseid ostma, olles oma vanu teksaseid aastaid ja aastaid kandnud. ja ma ütlesin: "Teate, ma tahaksin ühte paari teksapükse, siin on mu suurus." Ja müüja ütles: "Kas te soovite kitsa lõikega, lihtsa lõikega, avara lõikega? Tahate nööpidega või lukuga? Kas tahate kivi- või happepesu? Kas te tahate rebituid? Kas te tahate alt laienevaid, kitsenevaid, bla bla bla..." Ta vuristas edasi ja edasi. Mul kukkus suu ammuli, ja kui olin toibunud, ütlesin: "Ma tahan seda sorti, mis kunagi oli ainus sort." (Naermine)
(Laughter)
Tal ei olnud õrna aimugi, milline sort see oli,
He had no idea what that was.
(Laughter)
nii et ma kulutasin kõiki neid neetud pükse jalga proovides mitu tundi,
So I spent an hour trying on all these damn jeans, and I walked out of the store -- truth -- with the best-fitting jeans I had ever had. I did better.
ja jalutasin poest välja -- tõele au andes -- kõige paremini istuvate teksadega, mis mul kunagi olnud on. Ma sain hea kauba. Tänu kõikidele nendele valikutele oli mul võimalik saada parim.
All this choice made it possible for me to do better. But -- I felt worse. Why? I wrote a whole book to try to explain this to myself. The reason is --
Aga mu enesetunne oli halvem. Miks? Ma kirjutasin terve raamatu, et proovida seda endale seletada. Põhjus, miks ma ennast halvemini tundsin, oli see,
(Laughter)
The reason I felt worse is that with all of these options available, my expectations about how good a pair of jeans should be went up. I had very low, no particular expectations when they only came in one flavor. When they came in 100 flavors, damn it, one of them should've been perfect. And what I got was good, but it wasn't perfect. And so I compared what I got to what I expected, and what I got was disappointing in comparison to what I expected. Adding options to people's lives can't help but increase the expectations people have about how good those options will be. And what that's going to produce is less satisfaction with results, even when they're good results.
et kuna nii palju variante oli saadaval, tõusid mu ootused teksapükste suhtes kõrgemale. Enne olid mul väga madalad ootused. Mul ei olnudki mingeid erilisi ootusi, kui saada oli ainult ühte sorti. Kui neid oli sada sorti, siis neetud, üks neist oleks pidanud ju täiuslik olema. Ja need, mis ma sain, olid küll head, aga mitte täiuslikud. Ja nii ma võrdlesin seda, mida ma sain, sellega, mida ma olin oodanud, ja mida ma sain oli pettumus võrreldes sellega, mida ma ootasin. Inimestele rohkemate valikute andmine ei saa teha muud, kui kergitada inimeste ootusi selle suhtes, kui head need valikud on. Ja see tekitab väiksemat rahulolu tulemustega, isegi kui tulemused on head.
[It all looks so great. I can't wait to be disappointed.]
Mitte keegi marketingi valdkonnas pole sellest teadlik.
Nobody in the world of marketing knows this.
Sest kui nad teaksid, siis te ei teaks, mis see kõik on.
Because if they did, you wouldn't all know what this was about. The truth is more like this.
Tõde on pigem selline.
[Everything was better back when everything was worse.]
(Naermine)
The reason that everything was better back when everything was worse is that when everything was worse, it was actually possible for people to have experiences that were a pleasant surprise. Nowadays, the world we live in -- we affluent, industrialized citizens, with perfection the expectation -- the best you can ever hope for is that stuff is as good as you expect it to be. You will never be pleasantly surprised, because your expectations, my expectations, have gone through the roof. The secret to happiness -- this is what you all came for -- the secret to happiness is: low expectations.
Põhjus, miks vanasti, kui kõik halvem oli, kõik parem oli, on see, et kui kõik oli halvem, siis oli inimestel võimalik kogeda elamusi, mis olid meeldivaks üllatuseks. Tänapäeva maailmas, kus me elame -- meie ehk rikkad, industriaalsed kodanikud, kes eeldavad perfektsust -- on parim, mida sa saad loota, et kõik asjad on ainult nii head, nagu sa lootsid. Sa pole mitte kunagi meeldivalt üllatunud, sest su ootused, minu ootused, on kõrgel pilvedes. Õnne võti -- see, mida te siia kuulma tulite -- õnne võti on madalad ootused.
(Laughter)
(Naermine)
[You'll do]
(Aplaus)
(Applause)
(Laughter)
I want to say -- just a little autobiographical moment -- that I actually am married to a wife, and she's really quite wonderful. I couldn't have done better. I didn't settle. But settling isn't always such a bad thing.
Ma tahaksin öelda -- lihtsalt üks väike autobiograafiline moment -- et mul tõesti on naine, kellega me oleme abielus, ja ta on tõesti üsna imeline. Paremat poleks mul võimalik tahta. Ma ei pidanud tema puhul leppima variandiga "käib küll". Aga leppimine polegi alati halb.
Finally, one consequence of buying a bad-fitting pair of jeans when there is only one kind to buy is that when you are dissatisfied and you ask why, who's responsible, the answer is clear: the world is responsible. What could you do? When there are hundreds of different styles of jeans available and you buy one that is disappointing and you ask why, who's responsible, it is equally clear that the answer to the question is "you." You could have done better. With a hundred different kinds of jeans on display, there is no excuse for failure. And so when people make decisions, and even though the results of the decisions are good, they feel disappointed about them; they blame themselves.
Lõpuks, üks halvastiistuvate teksaste ostmise tagajärg, kui ainult ühte sorti ongi osta, on see, et kui sa pole rahul, siis sul pole vaja küsida - miks? Või kes on süüdi? Vastus on niigi selge. Maailm on süüdi. Mis sul parata? Kui saada on sadu erineva lõikega teksaseid, ja sa oled pükstes, mille sa ostsid, pettunud, ja sa küsid, et miks ning kes on süüdi? Siis on samamoodi selge, et süüdi oled sina. Sina oleksid võinud paremini valida. Kui riiulitel on sada erinevat sorti teksaseid, siis pole läbikukkumiseks mingit ettekäänet. Nii et kui inimesed langetavad otsuseid, ja isegi kui nende otsuste tulemused on head, siis tunnevad nad pettumust, nad süüdistavad iseennast.
Clinical depression has exploded in the industrial world in the last generation. I believe a significant -- not the only, but a significant -- contributor to this explosion of depression and also suicide, is that people have experiences that are disappointing because their standards are so high, and then when they have to explain these experiences to themselves, they think they're at fault. So the net result is that we do better in general, objectively, and we feel worse. So let me remind you: this is the official dogma, the one that we all take to be true, and it's all false. It is not true. There's no question that some choice is better than none. But it doesn't follow from that that more choice is better than some choice. There's some magical amount. I don't know what it is. I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point where options improve our welfare.
Kliiniline depression on tööstusriikides viimase põlvkonna jooksul plahvatuslikult kasvanud. Ma usun, et oluline -- mitte ainus, aga oluline tegur depressiooni ja ka enesetappude levikus on see, et inimeste elamused valmistavad neile pidevalt pettumusi, sest nende standardid on nõnda kõrged. Ja kui nad peavad neid elamusi iseendale seletama, siis nad arvavad, et kõik on nende endi süü. Nii ongi tulemus tervikuna see, et objektiivselt läheb meil kõigil paremini, aga me tunneme ennast halvemini. Nii et las ma tuletan teile meelde. See ongi ametlik dogma, see mida me kõik tõeseks peame, ja see on vale. See ei kehti. Pole kahtlustki, et mingigi valikuvabadus on parem kui valikute täielik puudumine, aga see ei tähenda, et suur hulk valikuid on parem kui väike hulk valikuid. On olemas mingi paras kogus valikuid. Ma ei tea, kui palju see on. Ma olen üsna kindel, et me oleme sellest kogusest igatahes kaugel möödas, kus valikuvõimaluste lisamine meie heaolu veel suurendaks.
Now, as a policy matter -- I'm almost done -- as a policy matter, the thing to think about is this: what enables all of this choice in industrial societies is material affluence. There are lots of places in the world, and we have heard about several of them, where their problem is not that they have too much choice. Their problem is they have too little. So the stuff I'm talking about is the peculiar problem of modern, affluent, Western societies. And what is so frustrating and infuriating is this: Steve Levitt talked to you yesterday about how these expensive and difficult-to-install child seats don't help. It's a waste of money. What I'm telling you is that these expensive, complicated choices -- it's not simply that they don't help. They actually hurt. They actually make us worse off.
Poliitika mõttes -- ma olen peaaegu lõpetanud -- poliitika mõttes tuleb mõelda järgmisele. Mis võimaldab kõiki neid valikuid tööstusriikides on materiaalne rikkus. Maailmas on palju kohti, ja me oleme mitmest neist siin kuulnud, kus probleem pole mitte see, et neil on liiga palju valikuid. Nende probleem on see, et neil on liiga vähe. Nii et see, millest ma räägin, on kaasaegsete, rikaste, läänelike ühiskondade probleem. Ning masendav ja vihastav on see, kuidas -- Steve Levitt rääkis teile eile sellest -- kuidas kallid ja raskestipaigaldatavad laste turvatoolid on kasutud. Nad on raha raiskamine. Mida mina teile öelda tahan, on see, et need kallid, keerulised valikud -- asi pole selles, et nad ei tee asju paremaks, nad on lausa kahjulikud. Nad tõesti teevad meie olukorra halvemaks.
If some of what enables people in our societies to make all of the choices we make were shifted to societies in which people have too few options, not only would those people's lives be improved, but ours would be improved also. This is what economists call a "Pareto-improving move." Income redistribution will make everyone better off, not just poor people, because of how all this excess choice plagues us. So to conclude.
Kui natukenegi sellest, mis võimaldab meie ühiskondadele kõiki neid valikuid, oleks suunatud ühiskondadele, kus inimestel on liiga vähe võimalusi, siis paraneksid mitte ainult nende vaeste inimeste elud, vaid meie omad samuti. Majandusteadlased nimetavad seda Pareto-parandavaks liigutuseks. Sissetuleku ümberjagamine parandab kõikide olukorda -- mitte ainult vaeste -- sest kogu see valikute üleküllus on meile nuhtluseks. Kokkuvõtteks. Sa peaksid seda koomiksit lugema,
[You can be anything you want to be -- no limits.] You're supposed to read this cartoon and, being a sophisticated person, say, "Ah! What does this fish know? Nothing is possible in this fishbowl." Impoverished imagination, a myopic view of the world -- that's the way I read it at first. The more I thought about it, however, the more I came to the view that this fish knows something. Because the truth of the matter is, if you shatter the fishbowl so that everything is possible, you don't have freedom. You have paralysis. If you shatter this fishbowl so that everything is possible, you decrease satisfaction. You increase paralysis, and you decrease satisfaction.
ning, olles haritud inimene, ütlema: "Ahh! Mida üks kala ka teab? Sa tead, et selles akvaariumis pole miski võimalik." Fantaasiavaene ettekujutus, lühinägelik maailmavaade -- ja nii mõistsin seda esimesel korral minagi. Aga mida kauem ma sellele mõtlesin, seda rohkem hakkasin ma arvama, et sellel kalal on mõnes mõttes õigus. Sest tõde on see, et kui sa lõhud akvaariumi, et kõik oleks võimalik, siis sa pole vaba. Sa oled halvatud. Kui sa lõhud akvaariumi, et kõik oleks võimalik, siis sa vähendad rahulolu. Sa suurendad halvatust, ja sa vähendad rahulolu.
Everybody needs a fishbowl. This one is almost certainly too limited -- perhaps even for the fish, certainly for us. But the absence of some metaphorical fishbowl is a recipe for misery and, I suspect, disaster.
Kõik vajavad oma akvaariumit. See siin on peaaegu kindlasti liiga piiratud -- võibolla isegi kala jaoks, aga kindlasti meie jaoks. Aga teatud metafoorilise akvaariumi puudumine on viletsuse, ning, ma kahtlustan, katastroofi retsept.
Thank you very much.
Tänan teid väga.
(Applause)
(Applaus)