Hi. You might have noticed that I have half a beard. It's not because I lost a bet. Many years ago, I was badly burned. Most of my body is covered with scars, including the right side of my face. I just don't have hair. That's just how it happened. It looks symmetrical, but almost.
Zdravo. Verovatno ste primetili da imam bradu do pola lica. Nisam izgubio opkladu. Pre mnogo godina, imao sam teške opekotine. Veći deo mog tela je prekriven ožiljcima, uključujući i desnu stranu mog lica. Prosto nemam dlake. Tako se prosto dogodilo. Izgleda simetrično, ali jedva.
Anyway, now that we discussed facial hair, let's move to social science. And in particular, I want us to think about where is the potential for humanity and where we are now. And if you think about it, there's a big gap between where we think we could be and where we are, and it's in all kinds of areas.
Kako god, sad kad smo razgovarali o dlakama na licu, pređimo na društvene nauke. A naročito želim da razmislimo o mogućem potencijalu čovečanstva i o tome gde smo sada. A ako razmislite o tome, postoji veliki jaz između toga gde mislimo da bismo mogli da budemo i gde jesmo i tako je u svim oblastima.
So let me ask you: How many of you in the last month have eaten more than you think you should? Just kind of general. OK. How many of you in the last month have exercised less than you think you should? OK, and for how many of you has raising your hands twice been the most exercise you got today?
Dozvolite da vas upitam: koliko vas je u proteklih mesec dana pojelo više nego što mislite da je dobro? Samo uopšteno. U redu. Koliko vas je u proteklih mesec dana radilo vežbe manje nego što bi trebalo? U redu. A za koliko vas je podizanje ruku dva puta najveća fizička aktivnost za danas?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
How many of you have ever texted while driving? OK, we're getting honest. Let's test your honesty. How many people here in the last month have not always washed your hands when you left the bathroom?
Koliko vas je pisalo poruke dok ste vozili? U redu. Postajemo iskreni. Testirajmo vašu iskrenost. Koliko ljudi ovde u proteklih mesec dana nije uvek opralo ruke nakon upotrebe kupatila?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
A little less honest. By the way, it's interesting how we're willing to admit texting and driving but not washing our hands, that's difficult.
Malo manje iskrenosti. Usput, zanimljivo je kako smo voljni da priznamo pisanje poruka tokom vožnje, ali ne i nepranje ruku, to je teško.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
We can go on and on. The problem, the topic is that there's lots of things when we know what we could do -- we could be very, very different, but we're acting in a very different way. And when we think how do we bridge that gap, the usual answer is, "Just tell people." For example, just tell people that texting and driving is dangerous. Did you know it's dangerous? You should stop doing it. You tell people something is dangerous, and they will stop.
Možemo ovako u beskraj. Problem, tema je da postoji mnogo toga kada znamo kako bismo mogli da postupimo - mogli bismo da budemo veoma drugačiji, ali postupamo veoma drugačije. A kada razmišljamo o tome kako da premostimo jaz, uobičajen odgovor glasi: „Samo recite ljudima.” Na primer, samo recite ljudima da je pisanje poruka dok voze opasno. Da li znate da je opasno? Nemojte to više da radite. Kažete ljudima da je nešto opasno i oni će da prestanu.
Texting and driving is one example. Another very sad example is that in the US, we spend between seven and eight hundred million dollars a year on what's called "financial literacy." And what do we get as a consequence of that? There was recently a study that looked at all the research ever to be conducted on financial literacy -- what's called a meta-analysis. And what they found is that when you tell people, you teach them financial literacy, they learn and they remember. But do people execute? Not so much. The improvement is about three or four percent immediately after the course, and then it goes down. And at the end of the day, the improvement is about 0.1 percent -- not zero, but as humanly close to zero as possible.
Pisanje poruka dok vozite je jedan primer. Drugi veoma tužan primer je da u SAD-u godišnje trošimo između sedam i osam stotina miliona dolara na ono što nazivamo „finansijskom pismenošću”. A šta dobijamo kao posledicu? Nedavno je objavljena studija koja je posmatrala sva postojeća istraživanja o finansijskoj pismenosti - nešto što se naziva meta-analizom. A otkrili su da kada kažete ljudima, kada ih podučite finansijskoj pismenosti, oni nauče i zapamte. Međutim, da li je upražnjavaju? Ne baš. Napredak je oko tri do četiri procenta neposredno po završetku kursa, a potom opada. A kad se sve svede, napredak je oko 0,1 procenat - nije nula, ali je najbliže nuli što je ljudski moguće.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So that's the sad news. The sad news is, giving information to people is just not a good recipe to change behavior. What is?
Ovo su tužne vesti. Tužne vesti su da pružanje informacija ljudima prosto nije dobar recept za izmenu ponašanja. Šta jeste?
Well, social science has made lots of strides, and the basic insight is that if we want to change behavior, we have to change the environment. The right way is not to change people, it's to change the environment. And I want to present a very simpleminded model of how to think about it: it's to think about behavioral change in the same way that we think about sending a rocket to space. When we think about sending a rocket to space, we want to do two main things. The first one is to reduce friction. We want to take the rocket and have as little friction as possible so it's the most aerodynamic possible. And the second thing is we want to load as much fuel as possible, to give it the most amount of motivation, energy to do its task. And behavior change is the same thing.
Pa, društvene nauke su napravile više iskoraka, a osnovni zaključak glasi da, ako želimo da promenimo ponašanje, moramo da promenimo sredinu. Ispravan način nije u izmeni ljudi, već u izmeni sredine. Želim da vam predstavim veoma uprošćen model kako da razmišljate o tome: razmišljajmo o promeni ponašanja na isti način na koji razmišljamo o slanju rakete u svemir. Kada razmišljamo o slanju rakete u svemir, važne su dve glavne stvari. Prva je umanjenje trenja. Želimo da imamo raketu sa najmanjom mogućom količinom trenja kako bi bila najaerodinamičnija. A druga stvar je da želimo da utovarimo što je više goriva moguće, kako bi imala najveću količinu motivacije, energije da odradi zadatak. A isto je i sa promenom ponašanja.
So let's first talk about friction. In this particular case study I'll tell you about, there's a pharmacy, an online pharmacy. Imagine you go to your doctor. You have a long-term illness, your doctor prescribes to you a medication, you sign up for this online pharmacy and you get your medication in the mail every 90 days. Every 90 days, medication, medication, medication. And this online pharmacy wants to switch people from branded medication to generic medication. So they send people letters, and they say, "Please, please, please, switch to generics. You will save money, we will save money, your employer will save money." And what do people do? Nothing.
Zato prvo razgovarajmo o trenju. U ovoj naročitoj studiji slučaja o kojoj ću da vam govorim imamo apoteku, internet apoteku. Zamislite da pođete kod izabranog lekara. Imate dugoročnu bolest, doktor vam prepiše lek, pretplatite se na internet apoteku i lek vam stiže poštom svakih 90 dana. Svakih 90 dana, lek, lek, lek. A ova internet apoteka želi da preusmeri ljude sa leka poznatog proizvođača na generički lek. Stoga ljudima šalju pisma u kojima kažu: „Molimo, molimo, molimo vas pređite na generički. Uštedećete novac, mi ćemo uštedeti novac, vaš poslodavac će uštedeti novac.” I šta će ljudi da urade? Ništa.
So they try all kinds of things and nothing happens. So for one year, they give people an amazing offer. They send people a letter, and they say, "If you switch to generics now, it will be free for a whole year." Free for a whole year. Amazing! What percentage of people do you think switched? Less than 10 percent. At this point, they show up to my office. And they come to complain. Why did they pick me? I wrote a couple of papers on the "allure of free." In those papers, we showed that if you reduce the price of something for, let's say, 10 cents to one cent, nothing much happens. You reduce it from one cent to zero, now people get excited.
Pokušavaju razne stvari, ali ništa se ne dešava. Zato na godinu dana nude ljudima izvanrednu ponudu. Šalju ljudima pisma u kojima kažu: „Ako sada pređete na generički lek, biće besplatan godinu dana.” Besplatan godinu dana. Sjajno! Šta mislite, koliki procent ljudi je prešao na novi lek? Manje od deset procenata. U ovom trenutku su došli u moju kancelariju. A došli su da se žale. Zašto su odabrali mene? Napisao sam nekoliko radova o „čarima besplatnog”. U tim radovima smo pokazali da, ako umanjite cenu nečega sa, recimo, deset centi na cent, ništa se značajno neće desiti. Ako je umanjite sa jednog na nula centi, e, tad su ljudi uzbuđeni.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And they said, "Look, we read these papers on 'free,' we gave 'free.' Not working as we expected. What's going on?" I said, "You know, maybe it's a question of friction." They said, "What do you mean?" I said, "People are starting with branded. They can do nothing and end with branded. To move to generic, they have to choose generic over branded, but they also have to do something. They have to return the letter." So this is what we call a "confounded design." Two things are happening at the same time. It's branded versus generic, but it's doing nothing versus doing something. So I said, "Why don't we switch it? Why don't we send people a letter and say, 'We're switching you to generics. You don't need to do anything. If you want to stay with branded, please return the letter.'"
Rekli su: „Čitali smo radove o 'besplatnom', pa smo davali 'besplatno'. Ne deluje kako smo očekivali. O čemu se radi?” Rekao sam: „Znate, možda je trenje u pitanju.” Upitali su: „Na šta misliš?" Rekao sam: „Počeli su sa poznatim proizvođačem. Mogu da ne urade ništa i ostanu sa njim. Kako bi prešli na generički, moraju da odaberu generički naspram brendiranog, ali takođe moraju i da urade nešto. Moraju da odgovore na pismo.” Dakle, ovo nazivamo „zbunjujućim dizajnom”. Dve stvari se dešavaju istovremeno. Brendirani lek naspram generičkog, ali i nedelanje naspram delanja. Upitao sam: „Zašto ga mi ne zamenimo? Zašto ne pošaljemo pismo ljudima i kažemo: 'Prebacujemo vas na generički. Ne morate ništa da uradite. Ako želite da ostanete na brendiranom, odgovorite na pismo.'"
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Right? What do you think happened? Lawyers, lawyers happened.
Zar ne? Šta mislite, šta se desilo? Advokati, advokati su se desili.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
It turns out, this is illegal.
Ispostavilo se da je ovo nezakonito.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
By the way, for brainstorming and creativity, doing things that are illegal and immoral, it's fine, as long as it's just in the brainstorming phase.
Usput, kod mozganja i kreativnosti, nezakonito i nemoralno postupanje su sasvim u redu, dokle god ostanu u fazi mozganja.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But this was the purity of the idea, because the initial design was the branded had the no-action benefit. In my illegal, immoral design, generic had the no-action benefit. But they agreed to give people a T-intersection: send people a letter and say, "If you don't return this letter, we will be forced to stop your medications. But when you return the letter, you could choose branded at this price, generic at this price." Now people had to take an action. They were on even footing. Right? It wasn't that one had the no-action benefit. What percentage do you think switched? The vast majority switched. So what does it tell us? Do people like generics, or do we like branded? We hate returning letters.
Međutim, u ovome je suština ideje: zato što je u prvobitnom dizajnu brendirani lek imao prednost nedelanja. U mom nezakonitom, nemoralnom dizajnu, generički je imao prednost nedelanja. Međutim, pristali su da pruže ljudima trokraku raskrsnicu, da im pošalju pismo s rečima: „Ako ne odgovorite na ovo pismo, bićemo prinuđeni da stopiramo isporuku leka. No, kada odgovorite na pismo, možete da birate između brendiranog po ovoj ceni, generičkog po ovoj ceni.” Sada su ljudi primorani na delanje. Bili su u istoj ravni. Je li tako? Nijedan lek nije imao prednost nedelanja. Šta mislite, koliki procenat se prebacio? Velika većina se prebacila. Dakle, šta nam ovo govori? Da li ljudi vole generičke ili volimo brendirane lekove? Mrzimo da odgovaramo na pisma.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
This is the story of friction: small things really matter. And friction is about taking the desired behavior and saying: Where do we have too much friction so it's slowing people down from acting on it? And every time you see that the desired behavior and the easy behavior are not aligned, it means we want to try and realign them.
Ovo je priča o trenju: zaista su važne male stvari. A kod trenja se radi o uzimanju poželjnog ponašanja i govorenju: gde imamo previše trenja koje usporava ljude da ga prevaziđu? A svaki put kada vidite da poželjno ponašanje i jednostavno ponašanje nisu usklađeni, to znači da želimo da ih nanovo uskladimo.
That's the first part. We talked about friction. Now let's talk about motivation. In this particular study, we were trying to get very poor people in a slum called Kibera in Kenya to save a little bit of money for a rainy day. You know, if you're very, very poor, you have no extra money, you live hand to mouth, and from time to time, bad things happen. And when something bad happens, you have nothing to draw on, you borrow. The Kibera people can borrow at sometimes up to 10 percent interest a week. And then, of course, it's really hard to get out of it. You live hand to mouth, something bad happens, you borrow, things get worse and worse and worse. So we wanted people to keep a little bit of money for a rainy day. And we thought about what is the motivation, what is the fuel that we need to add? And we tried all kinds of things. Some people, we texted them once a week and said, "Please try to save 100 shillings" -- about a dollar -- "this week." Some people, we sent a text message as if it came from their kids. So it said, "Hi Mom, hi Dad, this is little Joey" -- whatever the name of the kid was -- "Try and save 100 shillings this week for the future of our family." Right? I'm Jewish, a little bit of guilt always works.
To je prvi deo. Govorili smo o trenju. Sad razgovarajmo o motivaciji. Baš smo u ovoj studiji pokušali da navedemo veoma siromašne ljude iz sirotinjskog kvarta Kibera u Keniji da sačuvaju nešto novca za crne dane. Znate, ako ste veoma, veoma siromašni, nemate dodatnog novca, živite od danas do sutra, a povremeno se dešavaju loše stvari. A kada se nešto loše desi, nemate zalihe, morate da pozajmljujete. Ljudi iz Kibere ponekad mogu da se zaduže i s kamatnim stopama od 10% nedeljno. A onda, naravno, teško je izvući se iz toga. Živite od danas do sutra, nešto loše se desi, zadužite se, stvari postanu samo gore i gore. Pa smo želeli da ljudi uštede malo novca za crne dane. Pa smo razmišljali o motivaciji, o pokretaču koji moramo da dodamo. Isprobali smo razne stvari. Nekim ljudima smo jednom nedeljno slali poruke s rečima: „Molimo vas, pokušajte da uštedite sto šilinga” - oko dolara - „ove nedelje.” Nekim ljudima smo slali poruku kao da stiže od njihove dece. Glasila je: „Zdravo, mama i tata, piše vam mali Džoi” - ili kako se već zvalo dete - „Pokušajte da uštedite sto šilinga ove nedelje za budućnost naše porodice.” Je li tako? Ja sam Jevrej, malo krivice uvek deluje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Some people got 10 percent. "Save up to a hundred shillings, we'll give you 10 percent." Some people got 20 percent. Some people got also 10 percent and 20 percent, but they got it with loss aversion. What is loss aversion? Loss aversion is the idea that we hate losing more than we enjoy gaining. Now, think about somebody who is in a 10-percent condition and they put 40 shillings in. They put 40 shillings, we give them four more, they say thank you very much. That person gave up six. They could have gotten six more if they gave a hundred, but they don't see it. So we created what we call pre-match. We put the 10 shillings in at the beginning of the week. We said, "It's waiting for you!" And then if somebody puts 40 in, we say, "Oh, you put 40 in, we're leaving four, and we're taking six back." So in both cases, pre-match or post-match, people get 10 percent. But in the pre-match, they see the money they did not match leaving their account. So we have text, text from kids, 10 percent, 20 percent, pre-match, post-match. And we had one more condition. It was a coin about this size, with 24 numbers written on it. And we asked them to put the coin somewhere in their hut, and every week, take a knife and scratch the number for that week -- week one, two, three, four -- scratch it like a minus if they didn't save and scratch it up and down if they saved.
Neki ljudi su dobili 10 procenata. „Uštedite do sto šilinga, daćemo vam 10 procenata.” Neki ljudi su dobili 20 procenata. Neki ljudi su dobili i 10 i 20 procenata, ali uz averziju prema gubitku. Šta je averzija prema gubitku? Averzija prema gubitku je zamisao da mrzimo da gubimo više nego što uživamo da dobijamo. Sad zamislite nekoga u slučaju deset procenata i on uštedi 40 šilinga. Odvoji 40 šilinga, mi mu damo dodatna četiri. On kaže hvala lepo. Ta osoba je izgubila šest. Mogli su da dobiju još šest, da su dali stotinu, ali oni to ne uviđaju. Pa smo osmislili nešto što nazivamo početnim bonusom. Odvojili smo deset šilinga na početku nedelje. Rekli smo, „Čekaju na vas!” U tom slučaju, ako neko odvoji 40, kažemo: „Uplatili ste 40, ostavljamo četiri, a uzimamo šest.” Dakle, u oba slučaja, kod početnog ili krajnjeg bonusa, ljudi bi dobili 10 procenata. Međutim, kod početnog bonusa, videli su mogući bonus kako napušta njihov nalog. Imali smo poruke, poruke od dece, 10 procenata, 20 procenata, početni bonus, krajnji bonus. I imali smo još jednu mogućnost. Radilo se o novčiću ove veličine, sa 24 broja ispisana na njemu. I zatražili smo im da smeste novčić negde u svoju baraku i da svake nedelje uzmu nož i ogrebu broj za tu nedelju - prva nedelja, druga, treća, četvrta - da grebu u vidu minusa ako ne uštede, a da grebu u smeru gore-dole, ako uštede.
Now, think to yourself: Which one of those methods do you think worked the best? Text, text from the kids, 10 percent, 20 percent, beginning of the week, end of the week, and the coin? I'll tell you what the average people think. We've done these studies of prediction, both in the US and in Kenya. People think that 20 percent will get a lot of action, 10 percent less, the rest of it will do nothing -- kids, coin, doesn't matter. People think loss aversion will have a small effect.
Sad, razmislite sami: koji metod je najbolje delovao? Poruka, poruka od dece, 10 procenata, 20 procenata, početak nedelje, kraj nedelje i novčić? Reći ću vam šta prosečni ljudi misle. Radili smo studije nagađanja i u SAD-u i u Keniji. Ljudi su smatrali da će 20 procenata da izazove veliku pažnju, 10 procenata manju, a ostatak neće postići ništa - deca i novčić nisu važni. Ljudi smatraju da će averzija prema gubitku da ima mali uticaj.
What actually happened? Sending a text reminder once a week helps a lot. Good news! This program lasted six months. People forget. Reminding people is great. Ten percent at the end of the week helped some more. Financial incentives work. Twenty percent at the end of the week -- just like 10 percent, no difference. Ten percent in the beginning of the week helps some more. Loss aversion works. Twenty percent in the beginning of the week, just like 10 percent in the beginning of the week, no difference. And the text message from the kids was just as effective as 20 percent plus loss aversion -- which is amazing, right? It's amazing how motivating messages from kids were. And one conclusion is we don't use kids enough.
Šta se zapravo desilo? Nedeljni podsetnik u vidu poruke pomaže mnogo. Dobre vesti! Program je trajao šest meseci. Ljudi zaborave. Podsećanje ljudi je sjajno. Deset procenata na kraju nedelje je pomoglo još više. Finansijski podsticaji deluju. Dvadeset procenata na kraju nedelje - isto kao 10 procenata, nema razlike. Deset procenata na početku nedelje još više pomaže. Averzija prema gubitku deluje. Dvadeset procenata na početku nedelje, baš kao 10 procenata na početku nedelje, nema razlike. A poruka od dece je bila jednako učinkovita kao 20 procenata plus averzija prema gubitku - a to je neverovatno, zar ne? Neverovatno koliko su podsticajne bile poruke od dece. A jedan od zaključaka glasi da ne koristimo dovoljno decu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And, of course, I don't mean in a child labor sense. But if you think about parents and their kids, we are the best that we can for our kids, and we think about the future, and I think we should think about how to use that amazing source of motivation to get parents to behave in a better way.
I, naravno, ne mislim u smislu dečjeg rada. Međutim, ako mislite na roditelje i decu, najbolji smo prema našoj deci, razmišljamo o budućnosti, i mislim da bi trebalo da mislimo o tome kako da koristimo taj izvanredni izvor motivacije da navedemo roditelje da se ponašaju bolje.
But the big surprise of this study was the coin. The coin basically doubled savings compared to everything else. And now the question is: Why? What was it about the coin? So I'll tell you how I started thinking about the coin, and then we'll come back to it.
Međutim, veliko iznenađenje u ovoj studiji je bio novčić. Novčić je u suštini udvostručio uštede u poređenju sa svim ostalim. Što povlači pitanje: zašto? Šta je to u vezi s novčićem? Reći ću vam kako sam počeo da razmišljam o novčiću, pa ćemo se vratiti na njega.
So you know, when I do research on, let's say, buying coffee, I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit in my office. I've bought enough coffee. I know how it works. The details, I'm familiar with. When you do research in some of the poorest places in the world, you have to go and visit and see what's going on and get some insight about how the system works. And on that particular day, I'm in a place called Soweto in South Africa, and I'm sitting in a place that sells funeral insurance. You know, in the US people spend crazy amounts of money on weddings? In South Africa, it's funerals. People spend up to a year or two years of income on funerals. And I sit in this place -- by the way, before you judge the South Africans as being irrational with this, I just want to remind you that spending a lot of money on funerals compared to weddings, at least you know for sure you only have one.
Znate, kada radim istraživanje o, recimo, kupovini kafe, ne moram nigde da idem. Mogu da sedim u kancelariji. Dovoljno puta sam kupio kafu. Znam postupak. Pojedinosti su mi poznate. Kada radite istraživanje u nekim od najsiromašnijih delova sveta, morate da pođete u posetu i vidite šta se dešava kako biste imali nekakav uvid o tome kako sistem funkcioniše. A baš tog dana, bio sam u mestu Soveto u Južnoj Africi i sedeo sam na mestu gde se prodaju osiguranja za sahrane. Znate kako u SAD-u ljudi troše sulude sume novca na venčanja? U Južnoj Africi troše na sahrane. Ljudi troše godišnji ili dvogodišnji prihod na sahrane. I sedim na ovom mestu - usput, pre nego što osudite Južnoafrikance kao iracionalne zbog ovoga, samo želim da vas podsetim da trošenjem velikih suma novca na sahrane u poređenju sa svadbama, bar ste sigurni da ćete da imate samo jednu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
OK, so I sit in this place that sells funeral insurance. And this guy comes in with his son -- his son is about 12 -- and he buys funeral insurance for a week. It will cover 90 percent of his funeral expense only if he dies in the next seven days. Right? These are very poor people, they buy small amounts of insurance and small amount of soap and such. And he gets that certificate, and in a very ceremonious way, he gives it to his son. And as he gives it to his son, I think to myself, why the ceremony? What is this father doing? Now, think about the breadwinner that decides on that particular day to direct some money into insurance or savings. What is the family going to see tonight? They're going to see less. Right? At that level of poverty, there'll be less food, less kerosene, less water -- something less tonight. And what his father was doing and what our coin was trying to do is to say, yes, there's less food on the table, but there's another activity. You see, what happened is, there are many good, important economic activities, like savings and insurance, that are invisible. And now the question is: How do we make them visible?
U redu, sedim na tom mestu koje prodaje pogrebna osiguranja. Dolazi jedan čovek sa sinom - sin mu ima oko 12 godina - i kupuje pogrebno osiguranje na nedelju dana. Pokriće 90 procenata troškova njegove sahrane, samo ako umre u narednih sedam dana. Je l' da? Ovo su veoma siromašni ljudi, kupuju osiguranje na malo, male količine sapuna i slično. I on prima sertifikat i na veoma svečan način uručuje ga njegovom sinu. I dok ga pruža sinu, razmišljam u sebi: čemu svečanost? Šta radi ovaj otac? Razmislite o jedinom zaposlenom članu porodice koji odluči da baš taj dan preusmeri nešto novca na osiguranje ili štednju. Šta će porodica da vidi večeras? Videće manje. Tačno? Na tom stadijumu siromaštva biće manje hrane, manje goriva, manje vode - biće nečeg manje večeras. A ono što je njegov otac radio i što je naš novčić pokušao da uradi je da kaže, da, biće manje hrane na stolu, ali postoji i druga aktivnost. Vidite, dešava se to da postoje mnoge dobre, važne ekonomske aktivnosti, poput štednje i osiguranja koje su nevidljive. Pitanje sada glasi: kako da ih učinimo vidljivim?
So let's go back to our rocket model. We have to, first of all, look at the system and see where there's little things we can fix, with friction, where is there that we can remove friction? And then the next thing we want to do is to think broadly about the system, and say: What other motivations can we bring in? And that's a much more difficult exercise, and we don't always know what would work best. Is it going to be money? Is it going to be loss aversion? Is it going to be something that is visible? We don't know, and we have to try different things. We also have to realize that our intuition sometimes misleads us. We don't always necessarily know what would work the best.
Vratimo se na model rakete. Moramo pre svega da posmatramo sistem i uočimo gde su sitnice koje možemo da popravimo, u vezi sa trenjem, ako je prisutno, kako da ga uklonimo? A potom, sledeća stvar koju možemo da uradimo je da mislimo šire o sistemu i da kažemo: koje još motivacije možemo da uvedemo? A to je daleko teža vežba jer ne znamo uvek šta je najfunkcionalnije. Da li je to novac? Da li je to averzija prema gubitku? Da li je to nešto što je vidljivo? Ne znamo i moramo da isprobamo različite stvari. Moramo i da uvidimo da nas intuicija ponekad obmanjuje. Ne znamo nužno uvek šta bi najbolje funkcionisalo.
So if we think about this gap between where we could be and where we are, it's a really sad thing to see this gap and to think about it. But the good news is, there's lots we can do. Some of the changes are easy, some of the changes are more complex. But if we'll attack each problem directly, not by just providing more information to people but trying to change the friction, add motivation, I think we can ... Can we close the gap? No. But can we get much better? Absolutely, yes.
Zato, ako razmislimo o ovom jazu između toga gde bismo mogli da budemo i gde jesmo, zaista je tužno videti ovaj jaz i razmišljati o njemu. No, dobre vesti su da mnogo toga možemo da uradimo. Neke promene su lake, neke su složenije. Međutim, ako se direktno suočimo sa svakim problemom, ne samo pukim pružanjem više informacija ljudima, već pokušavanjem da se izmeni trenje, doda motivacija, mislim da možemo... Možemo li da zatvorimo jaz? Ne. Međutim, možemo li da budemo mnogo bolji? Apsolutno, da.
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)