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 putovala u visoravni Nove Gvineje i razgovarala sam sa čovekom koji ima tri supruge. Upitala sam ga: "Koliko žena bi voleo da imaš?" I usledila je duga pauza, i pomislila sam u sebi: "Hoće li da kaže pet? Da li će reći 10? Da li će reći 25?" A on se nageo prema meni i prošaputao: "Nijednu."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 procenata ljudskih društava dozvoljava muškarcu da ima više supruga - poligamiju. Ali u značajnoj većini ovih kultura svega pet do deset procenata muškaraca zapravo ima nekoliko supruga. Imati nekoliko partnera može da bude zubobolja. Zapravo, supruge mogu međusobno da se svađaju, ponekad čak mogu i da potruju jedna drugoj decu. I morate da imate mnogo krava, mnogo koza, mnogo novca, mnogo zemlje kako 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 vrsta koja se sparuje. Devedeset sedam procenata sisara se ne sparuje kako bi podizali svoje mlade a ljudska bića to rade. Ne sugerišem da nismo - da smo nužno seksualno verni našim partnerima. Posmatrala sam preljubu u 42 kulture, zapravo razumem delom genetiku iza nje, kao i neke od njenih moždanih tokova. Veoma je uobičajena širom sveta, ali stvoreni smo da volimo.
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 menja ljubav? Reći ću da skoro uopšte ne menja. Izučavam mozak. Moje kolega i ja smo stavili preko 100 ljudi na skener mozga - ljude koji su se upravo srećno zaljubili, ljude čiju su ljubav upravo odbili i ljude koji su već dugo zaljubljeni. I moguće je ostati "zaljubljen" na duže. I davno sam utvrdila da su kod nas evoluirala tri vidno različita moždana sistema za parenje i razmnožavanje: nagon za seksom, osećanja snažne romantične ljubavi i osećanja duboke kosmičke vezanosti za dugogodišnjeg partnera. A ova tri moždana sistema zajedno - uz mnoge druge delove mozga - upravljaju našim seksualnim, romantičnim i porodičnim 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.
Međutim, nalaze se daleko ispod korteksa, daleko ispod limbičkog sistema gde osećamo naše emocije, gde nastaju naše emocije. Oni leže u najprimitivnijim delovima mozga povezanim s energijom, usredsređenošću, žudnjom, motivacijom, željom i nagonom. U ovom slučaju to je nagon da se dođe do najveće životne nagrade: partnera za parenje. Evoluirali su pre više od 4,4 miliona god. kod naših prvih predaka, i neće se promeniti ako prstom povučete nalevo ili nadesno na Tinderu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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?
Nesumnjivo je da tehnologija menja način na koji se udvaramo: imejlovi, poruke, emotikoni za izražavanje emocija, seksualne poruke, "sviđanje" fotografija, selfiji... Svedoci smo novih pravila i tabua udvaranja. Međutim, znate - da li ovo zapravo drastično menja ljubav? Šta je sa kasnim 1940-im, kad je automobil postao veoma popularan i kad smo iznenada dobili pokretne spavaće sobe?
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Šta je sa dolaskom kontraceptivne pilule? Oslobođene velike opasnosti trudnoće i društvene propasti, žene su konačno mogle da ispolje svoju primitivnu i 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 sajtovi za zabavljanje ne menjaju ljubav. Ja sam glavna naučna savetnica na Match.com-u, to sam već skoro 11 godina. Stalno im govorim, i oni se slažu sa mnom, da to nisu sajtovi za zabavljanje, to su sajtovi za upoznavanje. Kad sedite u baru, u kafiću, na klupi u parku, vaš drevni mozak namah kreće u akciju kao kad se uspavana mačka probudi i smešite se i smejete se i slušate i šepurite se na isti način kao i naši preci pre 100 000 godina. Možemo vam ponuditi više ljudi - svi sajtovi za zabavljanje mogu - ali jedini istinski algoritam je vaš vlastiti ljudski mozak. Tehnologija to neće promeniti.
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.
Tehnologija takođe neće promeniti koga birate da volite. Izučavam biologiju ličnosti i stigla sam do uverenja da su kod nas evoluirala četiri veoma široka načina razmišljanja i ponašanja, u vezi sa sistemima dopamina, serotonina, testosterona i estrogena. Pa sam napravila upitnik direktno na osnovu nauke o mozgu kako bih izmerila stepen do kog ispoljavate osobine - skupine osobina - povezane sa svakim od ova četiri moždana sistema. Potom sam postavila taj upitnik na više sajtova za zabavljanje u 40 država. Za sad je više od 14 miliona ljudi ispunilo upitnik, i mogla sam da imam uvid u to koga prirodno privlači ko.
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.
I ispostavilo se da su oni kod kojih je izražen dopaminski sistem više znatiželjni, kreativni, spontani, energični - pretpostavljam da ima poprilično sličnih ljudi u ovoj prostoriji - privlače ih ljudi slični njima. Znatiželjnim, kreativnim ljudima su potrebni ljudi nalik njima. Ljudi kod kojih je izražen serotoninski sistem su više tradicionalni, konvencionalni, oni poštuju pravila, poštuju autoritete, često su religiozni - religioznost je u serotoninskom sistemu - a tradicionalne ljude privlače tradicionalni ljudi. U tom slučaju se sličnosti privlače. U druga dva slučaja se suprotnosti privlače. Ljudi kod koji je izražen testosteronski sistem su često analitični, logični, direktni, odlučni i privlače ih suprotnosti: privlače ih oni sa izraženim estrogenom, oni koji imaju veoma dobre verbalne veštine i vešti su s ljudima, koji su izuzetno intuitivni i koji su veoma brižni i emotivno izražajni. Imamo prirodne obrasce izbora za parenje. Moderna tehnologija neće promeniti koga biramo da volimo.
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.
Ali tehnologija proizvodi jedan savremeni trend koji smatram naročito važnim. Povezan je sa konceptom paradoksa izbora. Milionima godina smo živeli u malim grupama za lov i sakupljanje. Niste imali mogućnost da birate između 1000 ljudi na sajtu za zabavljanje. Zapravo, ovo sam nedavno istraživala, i zapravo smatram da postoji nekakva tačka zasićenosti u mozgu; ne znam o čemu se radi, ali očito, iz uvida u mnoštvo podataka, možemo da prigrlimo između pet i devet alternativa i nakon toga zapadate u ono što akademici nazivaju "kognitivnim preopterećenjem", i uopšte ne odabirate bilo koga.
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.
Pa sam shvatila da zbog ovog kognitivnog preopterećenja ulazimo u novi oblik udvaranja koji nazivam "spora ljubav". Do ovog sam stigla radeći sa Match.com-om. Svake godine u proteklih šest godina smo radili istraživanje pod nazivom "Samci u Americi". Ne anketiramo populaciju sa Match-a, anketiramo američku populaciju. Koristimo više od 5000 ljudi, reprezentativan uzorak Amerikanaca zasnovan na popisu SAD-a.
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.
Trenutno imamo podatke za preko 30 000 ljudi i svake godine gledam iste obrasce. Svake godine kad postavim pitanje, preko 50 procenata ljudi koji su imali šemu za jednu noć - ne nužno u poslednjih godinu dana, već u njihovom životu - 50% je imalo prijatelje sa kojima imaju seks tokom svog života, a preko 50 procenata je živelo dugo godina s nekim pre venčanja. Amerikanci ovo smatraju nesmotrenošću. Dugo sam sumnjala u to; obrasci su tako dosledni. Mora da postoji nekakvo darvinovsko objašnjenje - Ne može toliko ljudi da bude 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.
I onda sam nabasala na statistiku koja mi je bila bliska. Radilo se o zanimljivom akademskom članku iz kog sam saznala da 67 procenata samaca u Americi danas, koji dugo žive s nekim, još uvek se nisu venčali jer se užasavaju razvoda. Užasavaju se društvenih, pravnih, emotivnih, ekonomskih posledica razvoda. Pa sam shvatila da ne verujem da se radi o nesmotrenosti; Mislim da se radi o oprezu. Današnji samci žele da znaju sve živo o svom partneru pre nego što se venčaju. Saznate mnogo ispod jorgana, ne samo o tome kako neko vodi ljubav, već i da li su srdačni, znaju li da slušaju, i u mojim godinama, imaju li smisla za humor.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
A u dobu u kom imamo isuviše velik izbor, imamo neznatan strah od trudnoće i bolesti i ne stidimo se zbog seksa pre braka, mislim da ljudi ne srljaju u ljubav.
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 --
A zapravo se događa sledeće, ono što viđamo je istinska ekspanzija faze pred vezivanje, pre nego što stanete na ludi kamen. Nekad je brak bio početak veze - sad je finale. No ljudski mozak -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 uvek trijumfuje, i zaista u SAD-u danas 86 procenata Amerikanaca će se venčati do 49 godine, pa čak i u kulturama širom sveta gde se tako često ne venčavaju, kad-tad se skrase sa 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."
Pa sam počela da uviđam: tokom ove duge ekstenzije faze pred vezivanje, ako možete da se otarasite loših veza pre nego što se venčate, možda ćemo da otkrijemo više srećnih brakova. Pa sam uradila istraživanje na 1100 venčanih ljudi u Americi - ne sa Match.com-a, naravno - i postavila sam im mnogo pitanja. No jedno od pitanja je glasilo: "Da li biste se ponovo venčali sa osobom s kojom ste trenutno?" I 81 procenat je odgovorilo: "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.
Zapravo, najveća promena u savremenoj ljubavi i porodičnom životu nije tehnologija. Nije čak ni spora ljubav. Već žene koje popunjavaju tržište rada u kulturama širom sveta. Milionima godina, naši preci su živeli u malenim grupama za lov i sakupljanje. Žene su krećale na rad kako bi brale voće i povrće. Vraćale su se kući sa 60 do 80 posto večernjeg obroka. Uobičajene su bile porodice sa dvoje zaposelnih. I žene su smatrane podjednako 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.
Onda se okruženje promenilo, pre nekih 10 000 godina, počeli smo da se skrašavamo na imanjima, te su i muškarci i žene postali primorani, zaista, da se venčaju s pravom osobom, iz odgovarjućeg okruženja, odgovarajuće religije i odgovarajućeg porekla, kao i društvenih i političkih veza. Muški poslovi su postali važniji: morali su da pomeraju stene, obaraju drveće, oru zemlju. Nosili su proizvode na lokalne pijace i vraćali se kući s nečim nalik novcu.
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.
S ovim vidimo uspon gomile uverenja: ubeđenje u bračnu nevinost, ugovorene brakove - strogo ugovorene brakove - uverenje da je muškarac glava domaćinstva, da je ženi mesto u kući, i najvažnije poštuj svog muža i dok nas smrt ne rastavi. Ovoga više nema. Ovo nestaje, a na mnogim mestima je nestalo.
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 je u toku revolucija braka. Oslobađamo se 10 000 godina poljoprivredne tradicije i približavamo se egalitarnom odnosu među rodovima - nešto što doživljavam kao veoma saglasno sa drevnim ljudskim duhom.
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 optimistično dete; ima tu štošta za žaljenje. Izučavala sam razvod u 80 kultura, izučavala sam, kao što rekoh, prevaru u mnogim - ima tu čitava hrpa problema. Kako je pesnik Vilijam Batler Jejts jednom rekao: "Ljubav je nepoštena stvar." Dodala bih: "Niko se živ neće izvući."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 probleme. Ali zapravo mislim da je pesnik Rendal Džerel to najbolje sročio. Rekao je: "Mračni, nespokojni svet porodičnog života - gde najveći omanuti mogu, a najkrotkiji uspevaju."
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.
Međutim, ostaviću vas s ovim: ljubav i privrženost će da opstanu, tehnologija to ne može da promeni. I završiću rečima, bilo kakvo razumevanje ljudskih odnosa, mora da uzme u obzir jednu od najmoćnijih odrednica ljudskog ponašanja: neutoljivi, prilagodljivi i iskonski nagon ljudi da vole.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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?
Keli Stecel: Mnogo ti hvala, za ovo, Helen. Kao što znaš, sa nama je još jedan govornik koji radi u tvojoj oblasti. Ona joj prilazi iz drugačije perspektive. Ester Perel je psihoterapeutkinja koja radi s parovima. Ti izučavaš podatke, Ester izučava priče koje joj parovi pričaju, kada zatraže od nje pomoć. Neka nam se pridruži na sceni. Ester?
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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?
Pa, Ester, dok si gledala Helenin govor, da li ti je neki njegov deo zvučao poznato kroz perspektivu tvog sopstvenog rada koji bi želela da prokomentarišeš?
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.
Ester Perel: Zanimljivo je jer s jedne strane, potreba za ljubavlju je sveprisutna i univerzalna. Međutim, način na koji volimo - značenje koje pripisujemo - pravila koja uređuju naše odnose, ja mislim da se temeljno menjaju.
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.
Proistekli smo iz modela koji je do sad primarno bio regulisan oko dužnosti i obaveza, kolektivnih potreba i odanosti. I preokrenuli smo to u model slobode izbora i individualnih prava i samoispunjenosti i sreće. I dakle, prvo sam to pomislila, kako se potreba nije promenila, ali kontekst i način na koji upravljamo tim odnosima su se mnogo promenili.
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?"
U vezi sa paradoksom izbora - znate, s jedne strane, naslađujemo se novinom i razigranošću, verujem, time što imamo toliki izbor. A istovremeno, dok govoriš o kognitivnoj preopterećenosti, vidim mnoge, mnoge ljude koji... koji strepe od neizvesnosti i nesigurnosti koja proističe iz ovolikog izbora, uzrokujući stanje "SOPP" i koja nas vodi - SOPP, strah od propuštene prilike, ili strah od propusta - poput: "Kako da znam da sam pronašla pravog - odgovarajućeg?"
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.
Pa smo stvorili nešto što nazivam "stabilnom nedoumicom". Stabilna nedoumica je kad ste preplašeni od usamljenosti, ali takođe niste voljni da se uključite u izgradnju prisnosti. To je skup taktika koje nekako odlažu neizvesnost ljubavne veze, ali i neizvesnost raskida. Pa, na internetu imate tri značajnije taktike. Prva je zaleđivanje i krčkanje, a to su sjajne taktike odugovlačenja koje nude obrazac zadržavanja, koji naglašava neodređenu prirodu ljubavnog odnosa, ali vam istovremeno nudi dovoljno utešne doslednosti i dovoljno slobode neodređenih ograničenja.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Yeah?
Je l' 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.
A onda sledi fantom taktika. A fantom je u suštini, kad na licu mesta nestanete iz sve te mase tekstova i ne morate da se bavite bolom koji ste naneli drugome, jer ste se postarali da bude nevidljiv i vama samima.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Yeah?
Je l' 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?
Pa sam razmišljala - ove reči sam smislila dok sam te slušala, u smislu kako rečnik takođe stvara realnost, a istovremeno, ovo je moje pitanje za tebe: da li smatraš da kad se kontekst izmeni da i dalje znači da je priroda ljubavi ostala 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?
Ti izučavaš mozak, a ja izučavam ljudske odnose i priče, te ja mislim da stoji sve što si rekla i više. Ali ja uvek ne znam stepen do kog izmena konteksta... Da li istovremeno počinje da menja - ako se značenje promeni, da li to menja potrebu, ili je potreba nezavisna od čitavog konteksta?
HF: Wow! Well --
HF: Opa! Pa -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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 --
Pa, ovde imam tri zaključka, u redu? Pre svega, što se tiče prvog, nesumnjivo da smo se promenili, da sada želimo osobu koju ćemo da volimo dok smo hiljadama godina morali da se venčavamo pravom osobom, odgovarajućeg porekla i odgovarajućih veza. I, zapravo, u mojim istraživanjima 5000 ljudi svake godine, pitam ih: "Za čim tragate?" I svake godine, preko 97 procenata kaže -
EP: The list grows --
EP: Lista 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: Ne baš. Osnovno za 97 procenata ljudi je da žele nekoga ko ih poštuje, nekoga kome mogu da veruju i da se poveravaju, nekoga ko ih zasmejava, nekoga ko ima dovoljno vremena za njih i nekoga koga smatraju fizički privlačnim. To se nikad ne menja. I izvesno - znate - imamo dva dela -
EP: But you know how I call that? That's not what people used to say --
EP: Ali znaš kako ja to nazivam? Ljudi nekad nisu tako govorili -
HF: That's exactly right.
HF: To je tačno.
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 s kim imaju drugarstvo, ekonomsku podršku, decu. Prešli smo sa proizvodne ekonomije na uslužnu ekonomiju.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
We did it in the larger culture, and we're doing it in marriage.
Uradili smo to uopšteno u kulturi i uradili smo to 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: Naravno, to je nesumnjivo. Ali je zanimljivo da milenijalci zapravo žele da budu dobri roditelji, dok je generacija pre njih želela da ima ugodne brakove, ali se nisu usredsređivali na dobro roditeljstvo. Vidite sve te nijanse.
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.
Imamo dva osnovna dela ličnosti: imamo kulturu - sve sa čime ste odrasli, u šta verujete i govorite - i imamo temperament. U suštini ja sam govorila o temperamentu. A taj temperament će se izvesno menjati s vremenom promena i promenom uverenja.
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.
A što se tiče paradoksa izbora, nesumnjivo se radi o začkoljici. Milionima godina ste pronalazili tog simpatičnog dečaka s druge strane bare i išli ste mu u susret.
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 da kažem još nešto. U krajnjoj liniji, u društvima lovaca i sakupljača, imali su dva ili tri partnera tokom njihovog života. Nisu bili nepustolovni! I ne sugerišem da mi jesmo, ali u krajnjoj liniji, oduvek smo imali alternative. Čovečanstvo je oduvek - zapravo, mozak je stvoren za nešto što zovemo "uravnoteživanjem", da pokuša da odluči: da li da dođem i ostanem? Da li da odem ili ostanem? Kakve su mi šanse tamo? Kako da se snađem s ovim ovde? Stoga smatram da sad gledamo još jednu manifestaciju toga.
KS: Well, thank you both so much. I think you're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!
KS: Pa, hvala vam obema mnogo. Mislim da ćete večeras imati milion partnera za večeru!
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Thank you, thank you.
Hvala vam, hvala vam.