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."
我最近去新幾內亞高地, 跟一位男士談話,他有三個老婆。 我問他:「你想要娶幾個太太?」 在很長的停頓之後, 我心想: 「他會說 5 個嗎? 還是 10 個? 還是 25 個?」 結果他靠過來 小聲對我說:「一個都不想。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
86% 的人類社會 允許男人有好幾位妻子: 一夫多妻制。 但是,這些文化中的大多數, 只有 5% 到 10% 的男人 真的有多位妻子。 有多位伴侶就像牙痛一樣。 事實上,妻妾間會互相爭寵, 有時候還會毒害別人的孩子。 而且你還得有很多牛、很多羊、 很多錢、很多土地, 才能養得起一個後宮。
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.
我們是配對型的物種。 97% 哺乳動物的親代 並沒有一起養育後代; 人類卻是如此。 我沒有說我們不... 我們性方面一定對伴侶忠實。 我研究過 42 個文化中的外遇行為, 我其實了解外遇的某些遺傳原因, 還有造成這種行為的大腦迴路。 這現象在全球很普遍, 但是我們天生就要愛。
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.
科技如何改變愛? 我要說幾乎一點都沒有。 我研究腦部。 我和同事將100多人 放進腦部掃描機中── 熱戀中的人, 剛剛失戀的人, 和談了長久戀愛的人。 人長時間一直維持戀愛的感覺 的確是有可能的。 我很久前就主張, 人類在交配和繁衍的過程中, 演化出三種迥然不同的腦部系統: 性慾、 強烈又浪漫的愛、 及對長期伴侶深深無盡的愛慕之情。 把這三個腦部系統加在一起, 再加上腦部的其它部分, 譜出我們浪漫的性、愛與家庭生活。
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.
但這三者深藏在皮質之下, 遠在我們感受情緒、產生感情的 邊緣系統之下。 它們藏在大腦最原始的地方, 與能量、專注、渴望、動機、 需求及慾望等連結在一起。 以這個例子來說, 就是渴望贏得生命中最大獎賞: 一名交配的伴侶。 我們的始祖在這方面的演化 已經超過 440 萬年, 就算你在交友軟體 Tinder 左右滑動頁面,也不能改變。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?
毫無疑問科技會改變 我們求愛的方式: 寫電郵、傳簡訊、 用表情符號表達情感、 發性愛簡訊、 讚一張照片或是自拍等等。 我們看見求愛招術 有了新規則及新禁忌。 但是,你知道... 這真的大幅改變了愛嗎? 那你怎麼看在 1940 年代晚期, 車子變得非常流行, 我們突然有了車床族這回事?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
那避孕藥的問世又怎麼說? 婦女從害怕意外懷孕 而名聲敗壞的威脅中解放出來, 終於可以表達非常自然原始的性慾。
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.
甚至約會網站,也沒有改變愛。 我是約會網站 Match.com 的 首席科學顧問。 我已經當了 11 年。 我一直跟他們說,他們也同意, 這不是約會網站。 這應該是介紹網站。 當你坐在酒吧裡, 咖啡廳裡, 甚至坐在公園的長椅上, 你古老的大腦馬上進入活動狀態, 就像一隻突然甦醒的貓, 你微笑, 談笑風生, 傾聽, 而且走路有風, 就像10萬年前的祖先一樣。 我們可以提供各式各樣的人, 所有的約會網站都可以, 但是,真正且唯一在盤算的 其實是你自己的大腦。 科技不會改變這件事。
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.
科技不會改變你決定愛誰。 我研究個性生物學, 我開始相信, 我們已發展出四種 非常顯著的思維和行為方式, 跟多巴胺、血清素 睪固酮及雌激素連在一起。 所以,我從腦科學的角度 去設計了一份問卷, 來測量你表達特質的程度── 各種特質── 與這四種腦部系統的關聯。 然後我把這份問卷放到 40 個國家的各個約會網站上。 超過 1400 萬人填過這份問卷, 我能藉此觀察哪些人 會自然而然地相互吸引。
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.
結果是, 多巴胺系統很強的人 比較有好奇心、有創意、 自動自發、有活力── 我可以想像在座 有很多像這樣的人── 因為這種人,同類相吸。 有好奇心及創意的人 需要跟同類的人在一起。 血清素系統很強的人 比較傳統、保守,他們遵循規定, 他們尊重權威, 他們也比較虔誠── 宗教性就在血清素系統內── 而且傳統的人也喜歡傳統的人。 也就是說,同類相吸。 另外兩個情況,則是異性相吸。 睪固酮系統表現強的人 比較重分析、重邏輯、直接、果斷, 而且他們喜歡相反特質的人: 他們喜歡雌激素高的人, 語言能力非常強 及很會處理人際關係的人, 直覺性強的人, 以及很會照顧人、會表達情緒的人。 我們生來就具有擇偶的自然模式。 現代科技不會改變 我們決定去愛誰。
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.
但是科技的確創造了一種現代趨勢, 我認為特別重要。 它與選擇的悖論這個觀念有關。 有百萬年之久, 人類是生活在狩獵 及採集的小團體內。 那時的人沒有機會 像我們一樣在約會網站中, 有上千個對象可選擇。 事實上,我最近就在研究這個, 我真的相信腦部的運作, 有所謂的「最佳選擇」; 我還不知道它是什麼,但很明顯, 在看了一大堆資料之後, 我們大約能接受5~9個選項, 超過這個數字之後, 就會出現學術界稱為 「認知超載」的問題, 然後就變成什麼都不選。
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.
所以我認為,因為認知超載, 我們開闢了一種新的求愛法, 我稱為「慢愛」。 我在 Match.com 的工作 讓我得到這個結論。 過去六年來, 每年我們都會做一項 「單身美國人」的研究。 我們不對 Match 族群做民調, 我們對所有美國人做民調。 我們選出5千多人, 從美國人口普查中 選出具代表性的樣本。
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.
我們現在有超過3萬人的資料, 而且每一年, 我都會看到同樣的模式。 每一年提問所得的結果是: 超過 50% 的人有過一夜情, 不一定是在去年, 而是一生中是否曾有過; 50% 的人曾經有過炮友; 超過 50% 的人在婚前 有長期同居的經驗。 美國人認為這太亂來了。 我對此結果也一直存疑。 但是,模式非常明顯。 這裡面一定有什麼達爾文式的解釋。 沒有那麼多瘋狂的人!
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.
我搞糊塗了,然後,一份統計 終於讓我明白這是怎麼回事。 那是一份非常有意思的學術文章, 我在裡面發現, 今天美國有 67% 的單身者, 與某人長期同居卻還不結婚, 因為他們害怕離婚。 他們怕離婚後要承擔的社會、 法律、情感、 及經濟後果。 我終於明白,我不認為這是亂來, 我認為這是謹慎。 現今,單身者想在婚前 了解伴侶的一切。 在床笫之間,你會看到很多, 不僅是做愛的方式, 還有他們是否體貼, 是否會聆聽, 而且到了我這個年紀, 還要看他們是否有幽默感。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
在有太多選擇的時代, 我們不太擔心懷孕和疾病, 對婚前性行為也沒有羞恥感, 我認為人們用自己的步調來慢愛。
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 --
而且其實,現在的狀況是, 我們看到是互結連理前的 預備承諾階段,被拉長了。 婚姻過去一向是一段關係的開始, 現在則變成一段關係的終點。 但是,人的腦
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
人的腦總是贏家, 確實,今天的美國 86% 的美國人會在 49 歲前結婚。 即使在世界各地 結婚不那麼頻繁的文化中, 他們最終也會與一位 長期伴侶定下來。
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."
所以這讓我想到: 在這段拉長的預備承諾階段, 如果你能在婚前 甩掉一段不好的關係, 可能我們就會看到比較快樂的婚姻。 所以,我研究了 1100 對美國夫婦, 當然不是在 Match.com 上做, 我問他們很多問題。 其中一個問題是, 你會與你現在的配偶再結一次婚嗎? 81% 的人說會。
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.
事實上,現代愛情 與家庭生活最大的改變 不在科技。 甚至也不是慢愛。 其實是女人湧入就業市場, 在全球各文化皆是。 幾百萬年來, 我們的祖先生活在 採集狩獵的小團體裡。 女人通勤到工作場所 去採集水果蔬菜。 她們回家時帶著六到八成的晚餐。 雙薪家庭很平常。 女人無論是在經濟、社會 或性方面都與男性一樣強大。
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.
然後環境在約一萬年前改變了, 我們開始定居下來務農, 男女兩性變得都有責任,真的, 要娶或嫁對人, 要背景相當, 要有對的信仰, 要門當戶對, 要有同樣的社會及政治圈。 男人的工作變得更重要: 他們必須搬石頭、砍樹、犁田。 他們把農產品拿去市場賣, 回家時帶回等值的金錢。
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.
隨之而來的是 我們看到一些信念興起: 婚姻守貞, 媒妁之言── 非常嚴格的父母指定婚約── 以及男人是一家之主, 女人要主內, 還有最重要的, 要榮耀丈夫,至死不渝。 這些都沒了。 這些都漸漸消失了, 而且在很多地方, 這些已成為過去式。
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.
我們現在正處於婚姻革命中。 我們正在擺脫過去 一萬年來的傳統農業家庭, 朝著兩性平權邁進── 而我認為這與古人的精神非常相符。
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."
我不是什麼樂天派的人; 還是有很多要大聲疾呼的地方。 我研究 80 種文化中的離婚, 我剛剛也說了我也研究通姦── 這裡有一大堆問題。 就像詩人葉慈曾說的: 「愛情是狡猾的東西。」 我還要加上: 「沒有人能活著出來!」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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."
我們都有自己的問題。 但事實上,我認為 詩人藍道‧傑瑞形容得最傳神。 他說:「家庭生活中的枯索紛擾, 會使強者技窮,謙者得勝。」
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.
在結束前我想留給大家這個: 愛情與戀慕會得勝, 科技無法改變它。 我的總結就是 想要了解任何一種人際關係, 一定要把人類行為中 最有力的決定因素考慮進去: 就是那抑制不住、 具適應性、 及最原始的人類渴望:愛。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?
凱莉:謝謝妳的演講,海倫。 這裡還有另一位講者, 跟妳研究相同的領域。 她從不同的觀點來看這件事。 精神治療師埃絲特.沛瑞爾 專門處理夫婦關係。 妳研究數據資料, 埃斯特則研究 夫婦在尋求協談幫助時 告訴她的故事。 歡迎她上台。 埃斯特?
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?
埃斯特, 妳在聽海倫的演講時, 有任何與妳工作經驗所獲的心得 互相契合的部分嗎? 妳可以談一下嗎?
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.
埃斯特:非常有意思,因為一方面 對愛的需求,無所不在, 放諸天下皆準。 但是我們愛的方法── 愛的意義── 支配我們關係的規則,我認為 正在從根本改變。
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.
直到今天為止,我們的模式 主要在規範責任和義務, 著重在集體的需求及忠誠。 而我們已經轉變到另一種模式, 有自由選擇及個人權利、 自我實現及幸福。 所以,我第一個想到的就是 需求本身不會改變, 但是其環境背景 及我們規範關係的方式 則有很大的改變。
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?"
選擇的悖論 你們都知道,我們一方面津津樂道於 新奇與好玩, 可以有這麼多選擇。 但是同時, 妳又談到認知超載, 我看過很多很多人, 因為有太多的選擇, 而引起的不確定感與缺乏自信, 進而產生所謂的社交控, 使我們── 社交控,又稱錯失恐懼症, 怕錯過任何機會── 就像:「我怎麼知道我已經 找到真命天子(女)? 命中註定那個對的人選呢?」
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.
所以,我們創造出我稱之為 「穩態曖昧」的一種東西。 「穩態曖昧」就是你既太害怕獨處, 但又不願意與人建立起親密關係。 這是一套策略, 盡可能地拉長一段似有若無的關係。 所以,在網路上你可以看到 三種主要的手法。 一種就是似冰或像溫火慢燉的關係, 這真是一種絕妙的拖延戰術, 給你一種維持關係的模式, 既強調一段關係的未定性, 又同時給你足夠的安逸穩定感, 及足夠的自由 在不明確的界線上遊走。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Yeah?
對吧?
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.
然後又有所謂幽靈。 幽靈基本上就是 你咻一聲就人間蒸發, 你不用去處理 你加諸在別人身上的痛苦, 因為你完全神隱,連自己都看不到!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Yeah?
對吧?
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?
所以我在想──這些名詞 在我聽妳演講時跑出來, 創造出栩栩如生的畫面, 而且同時, 這是我想問妳的問題: 你是否認為在環境背景改變之後, 愛的本質仍然不變?
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?
你研究大腦, 而我研究人的關係及故事, 所以我想...的確就像你說的, 還不止。 但是我不太明白, 環境背景改變的程度... 它是在某個時間點開始改變── 如果意義改變了, 需求會不會因此改變, 或是說需求跟整體環境背景 一點關係都沒有?
HF: Wow! Well --
海倫:哇,這...
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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 --
哇,三點對吧? 首先,回答你的第一個問題: 毫無疑問我們已經改變了, 我們現在想要去愛一個人, 數千年來,我們都得跟對的人結婚, 要門當戶對。 事實上,在我每年五千人的研究中, 我問他們:「你在找什麼樣的人?」 每一年,超過 97% 的人都說
EP: The list grows --
埃:清單變長了?
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 --
海:喔,沒有。 基本上,就是超過 97% 的人 都想要會尊重他們的人, 值得信任、傾訴的人, 會逗他們笑的人, 特別為他們空出時間的人, 還有,外表具吸引力的人。 這些從未改變。 當然你知道,有兩部分...
EP: But you know how I call that? That's not what people used to say --
埃:你知道我怎麼稱它嗎? 過去大家的回答,不是這樣的。
HF: That's exactly right.
海:沒錯。
EP: They said they wanted somebody with whom they have companionship, economic support, children. We went from a production economy to a service economy.
埃:他們說想要一個能陪伴他們、 能提供經濟支持及喜歡小孩的人。 我們從生產經濟變成服務經濟。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
We did it in the larger culture, and we're doing it in marriage.
過去大範圍的文化是這樣, 現在婚姻也變這樣了。
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.
海:沒錯,毫無疑問。 但是很有意思, 千禧世代很想當個好父母, 而他們的上一代想的 卻是如何有個好婚姻, 不是那麼著重在如何當個好父母。 你看到這些細微的不同處。
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.
個性有兩個基本部分: 一是你的文化,你成長中所做的、 所相信的、所說的── 還有就是你的氣質。 基本上,我今天講的都是你的氣質。 那個氣質一定會隨著 時間及看法而改變。
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.
至於選擇的悖論, 毫無疑問,這的確是個難題。 幾百萬年來一直都是 你看到一個好男孩 在水塘的另一邊, 你就去了。
EP: Yes, but you --
埃:是啊,但你...
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.
海:我還想說一件事。 基本就是,在狩獵採集的社會, 他們一生中往往有2~3位伴侶。 他們沒那麼死板! 我不是說我們也要這麼做, 但基本就是,我們總是有選擇的。 人類總是... 事實上, 大腦在平衡的基礎上, 去做嘗試與選擇: 我要來嗎?我要留嗎? 我要去嗎?我要留嗎? 這裡有什麼機會? 我要怎麼處理這個? 所以我想這部分也要漸漸消失了。
KS: Well, thank you both so much. I think you're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!
很好,謝謝兩位。 我想你們今晚會有百萬名飯友了!
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you, thank you.
謝謝妳,謝謝!