I was recently traveling in the Highlands of New Guinea, and I was talking with a man who had three wives. I asked him, "How many wives would you like to have?" And there was this long pause, and I thought to myself, "Is he going to say five? Is he going to say 10? Is he going to say 25?" And he leaned towards me and he whispered, "None."
Nedavno sam bila u Visočju Nove Gvineje i razgovarala sam s čovjekom s tri žene. Pitala sam ga koliko bi žena volio imati. Nastala je duga pauza i pomislih, "Hoće li reći pet? Ili deset? Ili dvadeset pet?" Nagnuo se prema meni i šapnuo, "Nijednu."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Eighty-six percent of human societies permit a man to have several wives: polygyny. But in the vast majority of these cultures, only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives. Having several partners can be a toothache. In fact, co-wives can fight with each other, sometimes they can even poison each other's children. And you've got to have a lot of cows, a lot of goats, a lot of money, a lot of land, in order to build a harem.
Osamdeset šest posto ljudskih društava muškarcu dozvoljava višeženstvo: poligeniju. U većini ovih društava samo pet do deset posto muškaraca uistinu ima nekoliko žena. Nije lako imati više bračnih partnera. Žene se mogu tući jedna s drugom, a ponekad jedna drugoj otruju djecu. Trebate imati puno krava, koza, novca, zemlje da biste sagradili harem.
We are a pair-bonding species. Ninety-seven percent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young; human beings do. I'm not suggesting that we're not -- that we're necessarily sexually faithful to our partners. I've looked at adultery in 42 cultures, I understand, actually, some of the genetics of it, and some of the brain circuitry of it. It's very common around the world, but we are built to love.
Mi smo uparivačka vrsta. Čak 97% sisavaca ne mora se uparivati da bi odgajali svoje mlado, ali ljudska bića moraju. Ne kažem da smo nužno seksualno vjerni svojim partnerima. Proučavala sam preljub u 42 kulture i donekle razumijem genetiku preljuba i sklop mozga u toj situaciji. Uobičajeno je diljem svijeta, ali stvoreni smo za ljubav.
How is technology changing love? I'm going to say almost not at all. I study the brain. I and my colleagues have put over 100 people into a brain scanner -- people who had just fallen happily in love, people who had just been rejected in love and people who are in love long-term. And it is possible to remain "in love" long-term. And I've long ago maintained that we've evolved three distinctly different brain systems for mating and reproduction: sex drive, feelings of intense romantic love and feelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner. And together, these three brain systems -- with many other parts of the brain -- orchestrate our sexual, our romantic and our family lives.
Kako tehnologija mijenja ljubav? Usuđujem se reći - nikako. Proučavam mozak. Kolege i ja skenirali smo mozgove stotine ljudi, ljudi koji su se nedavno sretno zaljubili, ljudi koji su nedavno odbačeni u ljubavi i ljudi koji su dugoročno zaljubljeni. Moguće je biti dugoročno zaljubljen. Već dugo stojim pri tome da smo razvili tri različita sustava u mozgu za parenje i reprodukciju: libido, osjećaji intenzivne romantične ljubavi i osjećaji duboke kozmičke povezanosti s dugoročnim partnerom. Ova tri sustava mozga zajedno s mnogim drugim dijelovima mozga upravljaju našim seksualnim, romantičnim i obiteljskim životima.
But they lie way below the cortex, way below the limbic system where we feel our emotions, generate our emotions. They lie in the most primitive parts of the brain, linked with energy, focus, craving, motivation, wanting and drive. In this case, the drive to win life's greatest prize: a mating partner. They evolved over 4.4 million years ago among our first ancestors, and they're not going to change if you swipe left or right on Tinder.
No, nalaze se duboko ispod moždane opne, duboko ispod limbičkog sustava u kojemu osjećamo različite emocije, u kojemu ih stvaramo. Nalaze se u najprimitivnijim dijelovima mozga povezanih s energijom, pozornosti, žudnjom, motivacijom, željama i nagonima. U ovom slučaju nagon da osvojimo najveću životnu nagradu: partnera za reprodukciju. Razvili su se prije 4,4 milijuna godina kod naših prvih predaka i neće ih promijeniti vaš odabir na Tinderu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
There's no question that technology is changing the way we court: emailing, texting, emojis to express your emotions, sexting, "liking" a photograph, selfies ... We're seeing new rules and taboos for how to court. But, you know -- is this actually dramatically changing love? What about the late 1940s, when the automobile became very popular and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms?
Tehnologija neupitno mijenja način na koji udvaramo: mejlanje, SMS-anje, emotikoni za izražavanje osjećaja, seksualne poruke, lajkanje slika, selfiji... Primjećujemo nova pravila i tabue u udvaranju. Ali mijenja li išta od toga ljubav? Sjetite se samo kasnih 40-ih kada su automobili postali popularni, a s njima i kreveti na četiri kotača.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
How about the introduction of the birth control pill? Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin, women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality.
A pojava kontracepcijskih pilula? Omogućile su ženama da se oslobode okova trudnoće i društvene štete i da konačno slobodno izraze svoju primitivnu, iskonsku seksualnost.
Even dating sites are not changing love. I'm Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com, I've been it for 11 years. I keep telling them and they agree with me, that these are not dating sites, they are introducing sites. When you sit down in a bar, in a coffee house, on a park bench, your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened, and you smile and laugh and listen and parade the way our ancestors did 100,000 years ago. We can give you various people -- all the dating sites can -- but the only real algorithm is your own human brain. Technology is not going to change that.
Čak ni stranice za upoznavanje ne mijenjaju ljubav. Ja sam viši znanstveni savjetnik stranice Match.com već 11 godina. Uporno im govorim, i oni se slažu sa mnom, da to nisu stranice za hodanje, već za upoznavanje. Kada sjedite u baru, kafiću, na klupi u parku, vaš prastari mozak iznenada se budi poput uspavane mačke i nasmiješite se, smijete se, slušate i paradirate kao što su i naši preci to činili prije 100 000 godina. Možemo vam dati gomile ljudi - kao i druge stranice za upoznavanje, ali jedini pravi algoritam nalazi se u našem mozgu. Tehnologija to neće promijeniti.
Technology is also not going to change who you choose to love. I study the biology of personality, and I've come to believe that we've evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving, linked with the dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen systems. So I created a questionnaire directly from brain science to measure the degree to which you express the traits -- the constellation of traits -- linked with each of these four brain systems. I then put that questionnaire on various dating sites in 40 countries. Fourteen million or more people have now taken the questionnaire, and I've been able to watch who's naturally drawn to whom.
A neće promijeniti ni to koga odabiremo voljeti. Proučavam biologiju osobnosti i počela sam vjerovati da smo razvili četiri velika stila razmišljanja i ponašanja povezanih sa sustavima dopamina, serotonina, testosterona i estrogena. Inspirirana znanosti mozga stvorila sam upitnik koji mjeri koliko izražavamo te osobine - odnosno skupinu osobina - povezane sa svakim od ova četiri sustava mozga. Zatim sam taj upitnik postavila na različite stranice za upoznavanje u 40 zemalja. Dosada je taj upitnik ispunilo 14 milijuna ljudi i sada vidim tko koga prirodno privlači.
And as it turns out, those who were very expressive of the dopamine system tend to be curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic -- I would imagine there's an awful lot of people like that in this room -- they're drawn to people like themselves. Curious, creative people need people like themselves. People who are very expressive of the serotonin system tend to be traditional, conventional, they follow the rules, they respect authority, they tend to be religious -- religiosity is in the serotonin system -- and traditional people go for traditional people. In that way, similarity attracts. In the other two cases, opposites attract. People very expressive of the testosterone system tend to be analytical, logical, direct, decisive, and they go for their opposite: they go for somebody who's high estrogen, somebody who's got very good verbal skills and people skills, who's very intuitive and who's very nurturing and emotionally expressive. We have natural patterns of mate choice. Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love.
Ispostavilo se da su oni koji imaju izražen sustav dopamina znatiželjni, kreativni, spontani i energični. Pretpostavljam da je u ovoj prostoriji puno takvih ljudi - njih privlače ljudi poput njih. Znatiželjni, kreativni ljudi trebaju ljude poput sebe. Oni koji imaju izražen sustav serotonina više su tradicionalni, konvencionalni, slijede pravila, poštuju autoritet, religiozni su - religioznost se nalazi u ovom sustavu - i tradicionalni ljudi vole tradicionalne ljude. U ovim primjerima sličnosti se privlače. U druga dva primjera suprotnosti se privlače. Ljudi s izraženim sustavom testosterona analitički su nastrojeni, logični, direktni, odlučni, a vole svoju suprotnost: nekoga s više estrogena, nekoga rječitog tko zna s ljudima, tko je intuitivan, topao i emocionalno ekspresivan. Imamo prirodne obrasce odabira partnera. Moderna tehnologija neće promijeniti koga odlučujemo voljeti.
But technology is producing one modern trend that I find particularly important. It's associated with the concept of paradox of choice. For millions of years, we lived in little hunting and gathering groups. You didn't have the opportunity to choose between 1,000 people on a dating site. In fact, I've been studying this recently, and I actually think there's some sort of sweet spot in the brain; I don't know what it is, but apparently, from reading a lot of the data, we can embrace about five to nine alternatives, and after that, you get into what academics call "cognitive overload," and you don't choose any.
No, moderna tehnologija stvara moderan trend koji je meni prilično važan. Povezan je s konceptom paradoksa izbora. Milijunima godina živjeli smo u malim društvima lovaca-sakupljača. Nismo mogli birati između 1 000 ljudi na stranici za upoznavanje. Nedavno sam ovo proučavala i mislim da u mozgu postoji optimalan broj koji može prihvatiti; ne znam koji to, ali navodno, prema iščitanim podatcima, možemo prihvatiti od pet do devet alternativa, a poslije toga ulazimo u ono što znalci nazivaju kognitivnim preopterećenjem nakon kojega ne izabirete nikoga.
So I've come to think that due to this cognitive overload, we're ushering in a new form of courtship that I call "slow love." I arrived at this during my work with Match.com. Every year for the last six years, we've done a study called "Singles in America." We don't poll the Match population, we poll the American population. We use 5,000-plus people, a representative sample of Americans based on the US census.
Zbog ovog kognitivnog preopterećenja javlja nam se novi oblik udvaranja koji ja nazivam usporena ljubavi. Do tog sam zaključka došla radeći na stranici Match.com. U zadnjih šest godina svake godine provodimo istraživanje pod nazivom "Samci u Americi". Ne ispitujemo populaciju naše stranice, već populaciju Amerike. Uzmemo 5 000 i više ljudi, što je reprezentativni uzorak SAD-a prema popisu stanovnika.
We've got data now on over 30,000 people, and every single year, I see some of the same patterns. Every single year when I ask the question, over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand -- not necessarily last year, but in their lives -- 50 percent have had a friends with benefits during the course of their lives, and over 50 percent have lived with a person long-term before marrying. Americans think that this is reckless. I have doubted that for a long time; the patterns are too strong. There's got to be some Darwinian explanation -- Not that many people are crazy.
Prikupili smo podatke 30 000 ljudi i svake godine uviđam neke od istih obrazaca. Svake godine kad postavim pitanje, preko 50% ljudi imalo je vezu za jednu noć, ne nužno prošle godine, ali tijekom života - 50% ljudi imalo je prijatelja s povlasticama tijekom svog života, a preko 50% ljudi dugoročno je živjelo s drugom osobom prije braka. Amerikanci misle da je to nepromišljeno. Dugo sam u to sumnjala; obrasci ponašanja su prejaki. Mora postojati neko darvinsko objašnjenje. Nije baš toliko ljudi ludo.
And I stumbled, then, on a statistic that really came home to me. It was a very interesting academic article in which I found that 67 percent of singles in America today who are living long-term with somebody, have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce. They're terrified of the social, legal, emotional, economic consequences of divorce. So I came to realize that I don't think this is recklessness; I think it's caution. Today's singles want to know every single thing about a partner before they wed. You learn a lot between the sheets, not only about how somebody makes love, but whether they're kind, whether they can listen and at my age, whether they've got a sense of humor.
Naišla sam na statistički podatak koji mi je sve razjasnio. Bio je to zanimljiv akademski članak u kojem sam saznala da 67% samaca u Americi koji dugoročno žive s nekim nisu se još vjenčali jer strahuju od razvoda. Strahuju od društvenih, pravnih, emocionalnih i ekonomskih posljedica razvoda. Shvatila sam da to nije nemar - mislim da je to oprez. Današnji samci žele znati baš sve o svome partneru prije nego što se vjenčaju. Puno se toga nauči ispod plahti, ne samo o tome kako netko vodi ljubav već i o tome jesu li srdačni, znaju li slušati, a u mojim godinama, imaju li dobar smisao za humor.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And in an age where we have too many choices, we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease and we've got no feeling of shame for sex before marriage, I think people are taking their time to love.
U današnje doba kada imamo previše izbora, premalo se bojimo trudnoće i bolesti i ne sramimo se seksa prije braka, ljudima se ne žuri voljeti.
And actually, what's happening is, what we're seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage before you tie the knot. Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship, now it's the finale. But the human brain --
I događa se to da se produžuje faza koja prethodi obvezivanju na brak. Nekoć je brak bio početak veze, a sada je njezin vrhunac. Ali ljudski mozak --
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
The human brain always triumphs, and indeed, in the United States today, 86 percent of Americans will marry by age 49. And even in cultures around the world where they're not marrying as often, they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner.
ljudski mozak uvijek pobjeđuje i u SAD-u 86% Amerikanaca oženit će se do 49. godine. Čak i u kulturama diljem svijeta gdje ženidba nije tako česta stanovnici se na kraju skrase s dugoročnim partnerom.
So it began to occur to me: during this long extension of the precommitment stage, if you can get rid of bad relationships before you marry, maybe we're going to see more happy marriages. So I did a study of 1,100 married people in America -- not on Match.com, of course -- and I asked them a lot of questions. But one of the questions was, "Would you re-marry the person you're currently married to?" And 81 percent said, "Yes."
Počela sam razmišljati: ako se tijekom ovog dugog razdoblja koje prethodi obvezivanju, možete riješiti loše veze prije nego što se vjenčate, možda ćemo sada imati više sretnih brakova. Provela sam istraživanje na 1 100 američkih bračnih parova -- naravno, ne na stranici Match.com -- i postavila sam im puno pitanja. Jedno od pitanja glasilo je: biste li se ponovo vjenčali za osobu s kojom ste trenutno u braku? Odgovor je bio u 81% slučajeva bio da.
In fact, the greatest change in modern romance and family life is not technology. It's not even slow love. It's actually women piling into the job market in cultures around the world. For millions of years, our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups. Women commuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables. They came home with 60 to 80 percent of the evening meal. The double-income family was the rule. And women were regarded as just as economically, socially and sexually powerful as men.
Najveća promjena u modernoj romantici i obiteljskom životu nije tehnologija, a nije čak ni usporena ljubav, već navala žena na burzu rada u kulturama diljem svijeta. Milijunima godina naši su predci živjeli u lovačko-sakupljačkim društvima. Žene su putovale na posao kako bi skupljale voće i povrće. Vraćale su se kući sa 60% - 80% večere. Obitelj dvostrukog dohotka bila je pravilo, a žene su smatrane jednako ekonomski, društveno i seksualno moćne kao i muškarci.
Then the environment changed some 10,000 years ago, we began to settle down on the farm and both men and women became obliged, really, to marry the right person, from the right background, from the right religion and from the right kin and social and political connections. Men's jobs became more important: they had to move the rocks, fell the trees, plow the land. They brought the produce to local markets, and came home with the equivalent of money.
Okolina se nekako promijenio prije 10 000 godina. Počeli smo se nastanjivati na farmama i žene i muškarci nekako su postali prisiljeni vjenčati se za pravu osobu pravog porijekla, pripadnika prave religije, iz prave obitelji, društvenih i političkih veza. Muški poslovi postadoše važniji: morali su micati kamenje, rušiti drva, obrađivati zemlju. Opskrbljivali su lokalne trgovine proizvodima i kući donosili njihovu protuvrijednost.
Along with this, we see a rise of a host of beliefs: the belief of virginity at marriage, arranged marriages -- strictly arranged marriages -- the belief that the man is the head of the household, that the wife's place is in the home and most important, honor thy husband, and 'til death do us part. These are gone. They are going, and in many places, they are gone.
Uz to uvriježila su se određena uvjerenja: djevičanstvo prije braka, ugovoreni brakovi - strogo ugovoreni brakovi - uvjerenje da je muškarac glava kuće, a da je ženi mjesto u njoj i što je najvažnije - poštuj muža svoga i dok nas smrt ne rastavi. Toga više nema. Ova uvjerenja nestaju, a posvuda su već i nestala.
We are right now in a marriage revolution. We are shedding 10,000 years of our farming tradition and moving forward towards egalitarian relationships between the sexes -- something I regard as highly compatible with the ancient human spirit.
Trenutno se nalazimo u bračnoj revoluciji. Odbacujemo poljoprivrednu tradiciju staru deset tisuća godina, a prihvaćamo egalitaran odnos među spolovima - nešto što je sukladno pradavnom ljudskom duhu.
I'm not a Pollyanna; there's a great deal to cry about. I've studied divorce in 80 cultures, I've studied, as I say, adultery in many -- there's a whole pile of problems. As William Butler Yeats, the poet, once said, "Love is the crooked thing." I would add, "Nobody gets out alive."
Nisam blesava; treba žaliti za odbačenim. Proučavala sam razvod u 80 kultura, i prevaru u mnogima i ima tu puno problema. Kao što je William Butler Yeats rekao: "Ljubav je nepredvidljiva." Dodala bih: "I svi od nje pogibamo."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We all have problems. But in fact, I think the poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best. He said, "The dark, uneasy world of family life -- where the greatest can fail, and the humblest succeed."
Svi imamo problema, ali mislim da je pjesnik Randall Jarrell to najbolje objasnio: "Mračan, mučan svijet obiteljskog života - tu i najbolji padaju, a i najponizniji se uzdižu."
But I will leave you with this: love and attachment will prevail, technology cannot change it. And I will conclude by saying any understanding of human relationships must take into account one the most powerful determinants of human behavior: the unquenchable, adaptable and primordial human drive to love.
Zapamtite ovo: ljubav i privrženost ostaju, tehnologija to ne može promijeniti. Zaključit ću riječima: svaki pokušaj razumijevanja ljudskih odnosa mora uzeti u obzir jedno od najmoćnijih odrednica ljudskog ponašanja: neutaživ, prilagodljiv, iskonski ljudski nagon za ljubav.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Kelly Stoetzel: Thank you so much for that, Helen. As you know, there's another speaker here with us that works in your same field. She comes at it from a different perspective. Esther Perel is a psychotherapist who works with couples. You study data, Esther studies the stories the couples tell her when they come to her for help. Let's have her join us on the stage. Esther?
Kelly Stoetzel: Hvala ti, Helen! Kao što znaš, imamo još jednog govornika koji se bavi tvojim područjem. Ona tome prilazi iz druge perspektive. Esther Perel psihoterapeutkinja je za parove. Ti proučavaš podatke, a ona priče koje joj parovi ispričaju kada joj dođu u potrazi za pomoći. Pridruži nam se na pozornici, Esther.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
So Esther, when you were watching Helen's talk, was there any part of it that resonated with you through the lens of your own work that you'd like to comment on?
Esther, slušajući Helenin govor, je li ti se neki dio učinio već viđenim u tvom radu, a koji bi željela prokomentirati?
Esther Perel: It's interesting, because on the one hand, the need for love is ubiquitous and universal. But the way we love -- the meaning we make out of it -- the rules that govern our relationships, I think, are changing fundamentally.
Esther Perel: zanimljivo je jer je u jednu ruku potreba za ljubavi sveprisutna i univerzalna, ali način na koji volimo -- značenje koje mu pridajemo -- pravila koja vode naše odnose značajno se mijenjaju.
We come from a model that, until now, was primarily regulated around duty and obligation, the needs of the collective and loyalty. And we have shifted it to a model of free choice and individual rights, and self-fulfillment and happiness. And so, that was the first thing I thought, that the need doesn't change, but the context and the way we regulate these relationships changes a lot.
Do sada smo radili prema modelu koji je reguliran dužnostima i obvezama, potrebama kolektiva i odanosti, a sada prelazimo na model slobodnog izbora i osobnih prava, samoostvarenja i sreće. To sam prvo pomislila - ta se potreba ne treba mijenjati, ali kontekst i način na koji reguliramo te odnose uvelike se mijenjaju.
On the paradox of choice -- you know, on the one hand we relish the novelty and the playfulness, I think, to be able to have so many options. And at the same time, as you talk about this cognitive overload, I see many, many people who ... who dread the uncertainty and self-doubt that comes with this massa of choice, creating a case of "FOMO" and then leading us -- FOMO, fear of missed opportunity, or fear of missing out -- it's like, "How do I know I have found 'the one' -- the right one?"
Što se tiče paradoksa izbora, čini mi se kao da uživamo u neobičnosti i zaigranosti koju veća mogućnost izbora donosi, a istovremeno, kako ste govorili o kognitivnom preopterećenju, primjećujem mnogo ljudi koji se užasavaju nesigurnosti i sumnji u sebe same koja nastaje uslijed ovolike količine izbora. Time nastaje SOPP koji nas vodi - SOPP, strah od propuštenih prilika, odnosno strah od propuštanja - i tjera nas da se zapitamo kako znamo da smo našli pravoga - onog pravog.
So we've created what I call this thing of "stable ambiguity." Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to be alone but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building. It's a set of tactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship but also the uncertainty of the breakup. So, here on the internet you have three major ones. One is icing and simmering, which are great stalling tactics that offer a kind of holding pattern that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship but at the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency and enough freedom of the undefined boundaries.
Stvorili smo nešto što ja nazivam stabilnom nejasnoćom. Stabilna nejasnoća nastaje kad se previše bojimo biti sami, ali ne želimo stvarati intimnost. To je niz taktika koje produžuju nesigurnost odnosa, ali i nesigurnost prekida. Na internetu razlikujemo tri takve taktike. Prva: zahlađenje i zakuhavanje. To su sjajne taktike ako si želite kupiti vremena, a pružaju pasivnost koja naglašava nedefiniranu narav odnosa, ali istovremeno vam daje dovoljno utješne dosljednosti i dovoljno slobode neodređenih granica.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Yeah?
Da?
And then comes ghosting. And ghosting is, basically, you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot, and you don't have to deal with the pain that you inflict on another, because you're making it invisible even to yourself.
Druga: iščezavanje. Iščezavanje je kada nestanete s platforme za dopisivanje i tada se ne morate nositi s boli koju nanosite drugima jer je nevidljiva i vama.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Yeah?
Da?
So I was thinking -- these words came up for me as I was listening to you, like how a vocabulary also creates a reality, and at the same time, that's my question to you: Do you think when the context changes, it still means that the nature of love remains the same?
Razmišljala sam - ove su mi riječi same došle dok sam vas slušala, kako rječnik također stvara stvarnost, a to je istovremeno moje pitanje za vas: Kada se promijeni kontekst, mislite li da narav ljubavi ostaje ista?
You study the brain and I study people's relationships and stories, so I think it's everything you say, plus. But I don't always know the degree to which a changing context ... Does it at some point begin to change -- If the meaning changes, does it change the need, or is the need clear of the entire context?
Vi proučavate mozak, a ja ljudske odnose i priče, pa mislim da vrijedi sve ono što ste rekli i još ponešto. Ne znam uvijek do koje razine promjena konteksta... Počinje li se mijenjati u određenom trenutku -- ako se značenje promijeni, mijenja li se i potreba, ili je potreba neovisna o kontekstu?
HF: Wow! Well --
HF: Opa! Pa --
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Well, I've got three points here, right? First of all, to your first one: there's no question that we've changed, that we now want a person to love, and for thousands of years, we had to marry the right person from the right background and right kin connection. And in fact, in my studies of 5,000 people every year, I ask them, "What are you looking for?" And every single year, over 97 percent say --
Imam tri stvari za reći, zar ne? Prvo, kao odgovor na vaš prvi argument: nesumnjivo smo se promijenili, sada želimo osobu koju ćemo voljeti, a tisućama godina, morali smo se vjenčati za pravu osobu pravog porijekla i s pravim vezama. U biti, u mojim istraživanjima od 5 000 ljudi godišnje pitam ih što traže. Svake godine, preko 97 % ispitanika odgovara:
EP: The list grows --
EP: Popis traženog raste.
HF: Well, no. The basic thing is over 97 percent of people want somebody that respects them, somebody they can trust and confide in, somebody who makes them laugh, somebody who makes enough time for them and somebody who they find physically attractive. That never changes. And there's certainly -- you know, there's two parts --
HF: Pa ne baš. Preko 97% ljudi želi nekoga tko ih poštuje, nekoga kome mogu vjerovati i povjeriti se, nekoga tko ih nasmijava, nekoga tko će izdvojiti vrijeme za njih i nekoga tko im je fizički privlačan. To je konstanta. A svakako postoje dva dijela --
EP: But you know how I call that? That's not what people used to say --
EP: Znate li kako ja to nazivam? To ljudi nisu prije govorili --
HF: That's exactly right.
HF: Upravo tako.
EP: They said they wanted somebody with whom they have companionship, economic support, children. We went from a production economy to a service economy.
EP: Govorili su da žele nekoga za društvo, ekonomsku podršku, djecu. Prešli smo iz proizvodne u uslužnu ekonomiju.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We did it in the larger culture, and we're doing it in marriage.
Uvelike smo to učinili u kulturi, a sada to činimo i u braku.
HF: Right, no question about it. But it's interesting, the millennials actually want to be very good parents, whereas the generation above them wants to have a very fine marriage but is not as focused on being a good parent. You see all of these nuances.
HF: Točno, to uopće nije upitno. Milenijalci zaista žele biti dobri roditelji, dok starije generacije žele lijep brak, ali nisu toliko željni biti dobri roditelji. Sve su te finese vidljive.
There's two basic parts of personality: there's your culture -- everything you grew up to do and believe and say -- and there's your temperament. Basically, what I've been talking about is your temperament. And that temperament is certainly going to change with changing times and changing beliefs.
Osobnost se sastoji od dva osnovna dijela: kulturu -- sve što su vas odgajali da činite, vjerujete i govorite -- i temperament. Ja sam ovdje govorila o temperamentu, a on će se mijenjati kako se mijenjaju i vremena i uvjerenja.
And in terms of the paradox of choice, there's no question about it that this is a pickle. There were millions of years where you found that sweet boy at the other side of the water hole, and you went for it.
Po pitanju paradoksa izbora, uopće nije upitno da je to nezgodno. Milijunima godina gledali smo zgodne dečke s druge strane bare i prepustili se.
EP: Yes, but you --
EP: Da, ali --
HF: I do want to say one more thing. The bottom line is, in hunting and gathering societies, they tended to have two or three partners during the course of their lives. They weren't square! And I'm not suggesting that we do, but the bottom line is, we've always had alternatives. Mankind is always -- in fact, the brain is well-built to what we call "equilibrate," to try and decide: Do I come, do I stay? Do I go, do I stay? What are the opportunities here? How do I handle this there? And so I think we're seeing another play-out of that now.
HF: Želim reći još nešto. U konačnici društva lovaca sakupljača za života su imala po dva-tri partnera. Nije im bilo dosadno! Ne kažem da i mi tako živimo, ali uvijek smo imali alternative. Čovječanstvo je oduvijek -- zapravo, mozak je "uravnoteženo" građen i odlučuje na temelju pokušaja: Hoću li doći i ostati? Hoću li otići ili ostati? Kakve mi ovo prilike pruža? Kako da se nosim s ovime? Upravo gledamo drugu verziju toga.
KS: Well, thank you both so much. I think you're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!
KS: Hvala vam objema. Mislim da ćete večeras imati milijun partnera za večeru.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Thank you, thank you.
Hvala vam, hvala vam.