I'm going to talk today about the pleasures of everyday life. But I want to begin with a story of an unusual and terrible man. This is Hermann Goering. Goering was Hitler's second in command in World War II, his designated successor. And like Hitler, Goering fancied himself a collector of art. He went through Europe, through World War II, stealing, extorting and occasionally buying various paintings for his collection. And what he really wanted was something by Vermeer. Hitler had two of them, and he didn't have any. So he finally found an art dealer, a Dutch art dealer named Han van Meegeren, who sold him a wonderful Vermeer for the cost of what would now be 10 million dollars. And it was his favorite artwork ever.
Danas ću pričati o užicima svakodnevnog života. Ali prvo želim započeti s pričom o neobičnom i užasnom čovjeku. Ovo je Hermann Goering. Goering je bio drugi po zapovjednoj odgovornosti u 2. svjetskom ratu, Hitlerov nasljednik. Kao i Hitler, Goering se smatrao kolekcionarom umjetnina. Tijekom 2. svjetskog rata putovao je Europom kradući, iznuđujući i ponekad kupujući različite slike za svoju kolekciju. Ono što je stvarno htio je bilo nešto Vermeerovo. Hitler je imao dva primjerka, a on nijedan. Napokon je pronašao trgovca umjetninama, nizozemskog trgovca umjetninama Hana van Meegerena koji mu je prodao predivnog Vermeera po cijeni koja bi danas bila 10 milijuna dolara. To je bila njegova omiljena umjetnina.
World War II came to an end, and Goering was captured, tried at Nuremberg and ultimately sentenced to death. Then the Allied forces went through his collections and found the paintings and went after the people who sold it to him. And at some point the Dutch police came into Amsterdam and arrested Van Meegeren. Van Meegeren was charged with the crime of treason, which is itself punishable by death. Six weeks into his prison sentence, van Meegeren confessed. But he didn't confess to treason. He said, "I did not sell a great masterpiece to that Nazi. I painted it myself; I'm a forger." Now nobody believed him. And he said, "I'll prove it. Bring me a canvas and some paint, and I will paint a Vermeer much better than I sold that disgusting Nazi. I also need alcohol and morphine, because it's the only way I can work." (Laughter) So they brought him in. He painted a beautiful Vermeer. And then the charges of treason were dropped. He had a lesser charge of forgery, got a year sentence and died a hero to the Dutch people. There's a lot more to be said about van Meegeren, but I want to turn now to Goering, who's pictured here being interrogated at Nuremberg.
2. svjetski rat je završio, Goering je zarobljen i suđen u Nurembergu te na kraju osuđen na smrt. Tada su savezničke snage prošle kroz njegovu kolekciju i pronašle slike te potražili ljude koji su mu ih prodali. U nekom trenutku nizozemska policija je došla u Amsterdam i uhitila Van Meegerena. Van Meegeren je bio optužen za zločin izdaje koji je kažnjiv smrću. Nakon što je proveo šest tjedana u zatvoru Van Meegeren je priznao. Ali nije priznao izdaju. Rekao je: "Nisam prodao remek-djelo tome nacistu. Naslikao sam ga sam; Ja sam krivotvoritelj." Sada mu nitko nije vjerovao. Rekao je: "Dokazat ću to. Donesite mi platno i boju i nacrtat ću vam Vermeera puno bolje od onoga što sam prodao tom odvratnom nacistu. Također, trebam alkohol i morfij, jer to je jedini način na koji mogu raditi." (Smijeh) Doveli su ga. Naslikao je predivnog Vermeera. I optužbe za izdaju su odbačene. Dobio je manju optužbu za krivotvorenje, kaznu od godinu dana i umro kao heroj za nizozemski narod. Puno bi se toga moglo reći o Van Meegerenu, ali sada bih se htio vratiti na Goeringa, koji je ovdje prikazan na ispitivanju u Nurembergu.
Now Goering was, by all accounts, a terrible man. Even for a Nazi, he was a terrible man. His American interrogators described him as an amicable psychopath. But you could feel sympathy for the reaction he had when he was told that his favorite painting was actually a forgery. According to his biographer, "He looked as if for the first time he had discovered there was evil in the world." (Laughter) And he killed himself soon afterwards. He had discovered after all that the painting he thought was this was actually that. It looked the same, but it had a different origin, it was a different artwork.
Goering je po svemu sudeći bio užasan čovjek. Čak i za nacista je bio užasan čovjek. Njegovi američki ispitivači su ga opisali kao prijateljskog psihopata. Ali mogli ste osjetiti sućut na reakciju koju je imao kada mu je rečeno da je njegova omiljena slika zapravo krivotvorina. Prema njegovom biografu, "Izgledao je kao da je po prvi puta otkrio da postoji zlo na svijetu." (Smijeh) Ubrzo nakon toga se ubio. Nakon svega je otkrio da je slika za koju je mislio da je ovo bila zapravo ovo. Izgledala je isto, ali je imala drugačije podrijetlo, bila je drugačija ilustracija.
It wasn't just him who was in for a shock. Once van Meegeren was on trial, he couldn't stop talking. And he boasted about all the great masterpieces that he himself had painted that were attributed to other artists. In particular, "The Supper at Emmaus" which was viewed as Vermeer's finest masterpiece, his best work -- people would come [from] all over the world to see it -- was actually a forgery. It was not that painting, but that painting. And when that was discovered, it lost all its value and was taken away from the museum.
Nije samo on bio u šoku. Kada je Van Meegeren bio na suđenju, nije prestajao govoriti. Hvalio se o svim velikim remek-djelima koje je on sam naslikao koji su bili pripisani drugim umjetnicima. Posebice, "Večera u Emausu" koja je viđena kao Vermeerovo najbolje remek-djelo, njegov najbolji rad -- ljudi su dolazili iz svih krajeva svijeta kako bi ju vidjeli -- zapravo je bila krivotvorina. Nije bila ova slika, nego ova slika. Kada je to otkriveno, izgubila je svu svoju vrijednost i maknuta je iz muzeja.
Why does this matter? I'm a psychologists -- why do origins matter so much? Why do we respond so much to our knowledge of where something comes from? Well there's an answer that many people would give. Many sociologists like Veblen and Wolfe would argue that the reason why we take origins so seriously is because we're snobs, because we're focused on status. Among other things, if you want to show off how rich you are, how powerful you are, it's always better to own an original than a forgery because there's always going to be fewer originals than forgeries. I don't doubt that that plays some role, but what I want to convince you of today is that there's something else going on. I want to convince you that humans are, to some extent, natural born essentialists. What I mean by this is we don't just respond to things as we see them, or feel them, or hear them. Rather, our response is conditioned on our beliefs, about what they really are, what they came from, what they're made of, what their hidden nature is. I want to suggest that this is true, not just for how we think about things, but how we react to things.
Zašto je to bitno? Vi psiholozi, zašto je porijeklo toliko bitno? Zašto reagiramo tako jako na znanje o tome odakle nešto potječe? Postoji odgovor koji bi mnogi ljudi dali. Mnogi sociolozi kao Veblen i Wolfe bi tvrdili da je razlog zašto shvaćamo podrijetlo tako ozbiljno zato što smo snobovi, jer smo fokusirani na status. Između ostaloga, ako želiš pokazati kako si bogat, kako si moćan, uvijek je bolje imati original nego krivotvorinu, jer uvijek će biti manje originala nego krivotvorina. Ne sumnjam da to donekle igra ulogu, ali ja vas danas želim uvjeriti da se tu još nešto događa. Želim vas uvjeriti da su ljudi, do neke mjere prirodni esencijalisti. Ono što mislim pod time je da ne reagiramo na stvari samo kako ih vidimo ili osjetimo ili čujemo. Radije, naše reakcije su više uvjetovane našim vjerovanjima nego onime što stvari stvarno jesu, odakle su potekle, od čega su načinjene, koje su njihove skrivene karakteristike. Želim pokazati da je ovo istina ne samo za naše razmišljanje o stvarima nego i za našu reakciju na njih.
So I want to suggest that pleasure is deep -- and that this isn't true just for higher level pleasures like art, but even the most seemingly simple pleasures are affected by our beliefs about hidden essences. So take food. Would you eat this? Well, a good answer is, "It depends. What is it?" Some of you would eat it if it's pork, but not beef. Some of you would eat it if it's beef, but not pork. Few of you would eat it if it's a rat or a human. Some of you would eat it only if it's a strangely colored piece of tofu. That's not so surprising.
Želim reći da je zadovoljstvo duboko -- i da to nije istina samo za više razine zadovoljstva poput umjetnosti, nego su čak i naizgled jednostavna zadovoljstva pod utjecajem naših vjerovanja o skrivenim suštinama. Uzmite hranu. Biste li pojeli ovo? Dobar odgovor je, "Ovisi. Što je to?" Neki od vas bi to pojeli ako je svinjetina, ali ne govedina. Neki od vas bi to pojeli ako je govedina, ali ne svinjetina. Nekolicina vas bi to pojela ako je štakor ili čovjek. Neki od vas bi to pojeli samo ako je čudno obojeni komad tofua. To nije iznenađujuće.
But what's more interesting is how it tastes to you will depend critically on what you think you're eating. So one demonstration of this was done with young children. How do you make children not just be more likely to eat carrots and drink milk, but to get more pleasure from eating carrots and drinking milk -- to think they taste better? It's simple, you tell them they're from McDonald's. They believe McDonald's food is tastier, and it leads them to experience it as tastier.
Ali ono što je zanimljivije je kakvog vam je okusa će značajno ovisiti o tome što mislite da jedete. Ovo je demonstrirano s malom djecom. Kako natjerati djecu ne samo da jedu mrkve i piju mlijeko, nego da više uživaju u jedenju mrkvi i pijenju mlijeka -- da misle da imaju bolji okus? Jednostavno, kažete im da su iz McDonaldsa. Oni vjeruju da je hrana iz McDonaldsa boljeg okusa i to ih navodi da ju doživljavaju kao ukusniju.
How do you get adults to really enjoy wine? It's very simple: pour it from an expensive bottle. There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies showing that if you believe you're drinking the expensive stuff, it tastes better to you. This was recently done with a neuroscientific twist. They get people into a fMRI scanner, and while they're lying there, through a tube, they get to sip wine. In front of them on a screen is information about the wine. Everybody, of course, drinks exactly the same wine. But if you believe you're drinking expensive stuff, parts of the brain associated with pleasure and reward light up like a Christmas tree. It's not just that you say it's more pleasurable, you say you like it more, you really experience it in a different way.
Kako navesti odrasle da stvarno uživaju u vinu? Vrlo je jednostavno: natočite ga u skupu bocu. Postoje već deseci, možda čak i stotine studija koje pokazuju da ako vjeruješ da piješ skuplje ima i bolji okus. Ovo je nedavno napravljeno s neuroznanstvenim zapletom. Ljudi su podvrgnuti magnetskoj rezonanci i dok tamo leže, kroz cijev pijuckaju vino. Ispred njih je zaslon s informacijama o vinu. Svi, naravno piju potpuno isto vino. Ali ako vjeruješ da piješ skuplje vino, dijelovi mozga povezani sa zadovoljstvom i nagrađivanjem svijetle kao božićno drvce. Ne samo da kažete da više uživate, kažete da vam se više sviđa, stvarno ga iskustite na drugi način.
Or take sex. These are stimuli I've used in some of my studies. And if you simply show people these pictures, they'll say these are fairly attractive people. But how attractive you find them, how sexually or romantically moved you are by them, rests critically on who you think you're looking at. You probably think the picture on the left is male, the one on the right is female. If that belief turns out to be mistaken, it will make a difference. (Laughter) It will make a difference if they turn out to be much younger or much older than you think they are. It will make a difference if you were to discover that the person you're looking at with lust is actually a disguised version of your son or daughter, your mother or father. Knowing somebody's your kin typically kills the libido. Maybe one of the most heartening findings from the psychology of pleasure is there's more to looking good than your physical appearance. If you like somebody, they look better to you. This is why spouses in happy marriages tend to think that their husband or wife looks much better than anyone else thinks that they do.
Ili uzmite seks. Ovo su stimulansi koje sam koristio u nekim svojim istraživanjima. Ako samo pokažete ljudima ove slike reći će da su to prilično privlačni ljudi. Ali kako ih atraktivnima smatrate, koliko ste seksualno ili romatnično uzbuđeni njima uvelike ovisi o tome koga mislite da gledate. Vjerojatno mislite da je na lijevoj slici muškarac, a na desnoj žena. Ako se ispostavi da je to vjerovanje krivo, to će imati utjecaja. (Smijeh) Imat će utjecaja ako ispadne da su puno mlađi ili puno stariji od onoga što mislite da jesu. Imat će utjecaja ako otkrijete da je osoba koju gledate s požudom zapravo prerušena verzija vašeg sina ili kćeri, vaše majke ili oca. Saznanje da vam je netko rod obično ubija libido. Možda je jedno od najohrabrujućih saznanja iz psihologije užitka je da privlačnost nije samo fizički izgled. Ako vam se netko sviđa, izgleda bolje. Ovo je razlog zašto supružnici u sretnim brakovima misle da njihovi muž ili žena izgledaju puno bolje nego što to misli bilo tko drugi.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
A particularly dramatic example of this comes from a neurological disorder known as Capgras syndrome. So Capgras syndrome is a disorder where you get a specific delusion. Sufferers of Capgras syndrome believe that the people they love most in the world have been replaced by perfect duplicates. Now often, a result of Capgras syndrome is tragic. People have murdered those that they loved, believing that they were murdering an imposter. But there's at least one case where Capgras syndrome had a happy ending. This was recorded in 1931. "Research described a woman with Capgras syndrome who complained about her poorly endowed and sexually inadequate lover." But that was before she got Capgras syndrome. After she got it, "She was happy to report that she has discovered that he possessed a double who was rich, virile, handsome and aristocratic." Of course, it was the same man, but she was seeing him in different ways.
Posebno dramatičan primjer ovoga dolazi iz neurološkog poremećaja znanog kao Capgrasov sindrom. Capgrasov sindrom je poremećaj gdje imate specifičnu obmanu. Oni koji boluju od Capgrasovog sindroma vjeruju da su ljudi koje vole najviše na svijetu zamijenjeni sa savršenim kopijama. Često, rezultat Capgrasovog sindroma je tragičan. Ljudi su znali ubiti one koje vole vjerujući da ubijaju varalicu. No postoji barem jedan slučaj gdje je Capgrasov sindrom imao sretan završetak. Ovo je zabilježeno 1931. "Istraživanje opisuje ženu sa Capgrasovim sindromom koja se žalila na svog loše obdarenog i seksualno neadekvatnog ljubavnika." To je bilo prije nego li je dobila Capgrasov sindrom. Kada je oboljela, "Bila je sretna da priopći kako je otkrila da posjeduje dvojnika koji je bogat, virilan, zgodan i aristokrat." Naravno, radilo se o istom čovjeku kojega je ona vidjela na drugi način.
As a third example, consider consumer products. So one reason why you might like something is its utility. You can put shoes on your feet; you can play golf with golf clubs; and chewed up bubble gum doesn't do anything at all for you. But each of these three objects has value above and beyond what it can do for you based on its history. The golf clubs were owned by John F. Kennedy and sold for three-quarters of a million dollars at auction. The bubble gum was chewed up by pop star Britney Spears and sold for several hundreds of dollars. And in fact, there's a thriving market in the partially eaten food of beloved people. (Laughter) The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all. According to an unconfirmed report, a Saudi millionaire offered 10 million dollars for this pair of shoes. They were the ones thrown at George Bush at an Iraqi press conference several years ago.
Kao treći primjer razmotrite potrošačke proizvode. Jedan od razloga zašto bi vam se nešto moglo svidjeti je korisnost. Možete navući cipele na stopala; možete igrati golf s golf palicama; a sažvakana žvakača guma vam ne znači ništa. Ali svaka od ove tri stvari ima vrijednost iznad i dalje od onoga što može učinit za vas temeljenu na svojoj povijesti. Golf palice koje su pripadale Johnu F. Kennediju su prodane za 750 tisuća dolara na aukciji. Žvakača guma koju je žvakala Britney Spears je prodana za nekoliko stotina dolara. Zapravo postoji cvatuće tržište djelomično pojedene hrane obožavanih osoba. (Smijeh) Cipele su možda najvrjednije od svih. Sudeći po nepotvrđenom izvještaju saudijski milijunaš je ponudio 10 milijuna dolara za ovaj par cipela. To su one koje su bile bačene na Georga Busha prije nekoliko godina na iračkoj konferenciji.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Now this attraction to objects doesn't just work for celebrity objects. Each one of us, most people, have something in our life that's literally irreplaceable, in that it has value because of its history -- maybe your wedding ring, maybe your child's baby shoes -- so that if it was lost, you couldn't get it back. You could get something that looked like it or felt like it, but you couldn't get the same object back. With my colleagues George Newman and Gil Diesendruck, we've looked to see what sort of factors, what sort of history, matters for the objects that people like. So in one of our experiments, we asked people to name a famous person who they adored, a living person they adored.
Ova privlačnost ka stvarima ne postoji samo za stvarima poznatih ličnosti. Svatko od nas, većina ljudi posjeduje nešto u svom životu što je doslovno nezamjenjivo, po tome što ima vrijednost u svojoj povijesti -- možda vaš vjenčani prsten, možda prve cipele vašeg dijeteta -- ako bi to bilo izgubljeno, ne biste ih mogli vratiti. Mogli biste nabaviti nešto što izgleda ili se čini kao to, ali ne biste mogli nabaviti istu stvar. Sa svojim kolegama Georgom Newmanom i Gilom Diesendruckom pogledao sam kakvi sve faktori, koja vrsta povijesti je bitna za stvari koje ljudi vole. U jednom od naših eksperimenata pitali smo ljude da imenuju poznate osobe koje obožavaju, živuću osobu koju obožavaju.
So one answer was George Clooney. Then we asked them, "How much would you pay for George Clooney's sweater?" And the answer is a fair amount -- more than you would pay for a brand new sweater or a sweater owned by somebody who you didn't adore. Then we asked other groups of subjects -- we gave them different restrictions and different conditions. So for instance, we told some people, "Look, you can buy the sweater, but you can't tell anybody you own it, and you can't resell it." That drops the value of it, suggesting that that's one reason why we like it. But what really causes an effect is you tell people, "Look, you could resell it, you could boast about it, but before it gets to you, it's thoroughly washed." That causes a huge drop in the value. As my wife put it, "You've washed away the Clooney cooties."
Jedan od odgovora je bio George Clooney. Tada smo ih pitali: "Koliko biste platili za George Clooneyev pulover?" Odgovor je bio poprilično visok -- više nego što biste platili za novi pulover ili pulover koji je nosio netko koga ne obožavate. Tada smo pitali drugu grupu ispitanika -- dali smo im različita ograničenja i različite uvjete. Npr., nekim ljudima smo rekli: "Možete kupiti pulover, ali ne smijete nikome reći da ga imate i ne smijete ga prodati." To mu je snizilo cijenu, povlačeći da je to jedan od razloga zašto nam se sviđa. Ali ono što stvarno uzrokuje efekt je kada kažete ljudima:"Možete ga prodati, možete se hvaliti njime, ali prije nego stigne vama, temeljito je opran." To uzrokuje ogroman pad vrijednosti. Kao što bi moja žena rekla:"Oprao si Clooneyeve klice."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So let's go back to art. I would love a Chagall. I love the work of Chagall. If people want to get me something at the end of the conference, you could buy me a Chagall. But I don't want a duplicate, even if I can't tell the difference. That's not because, or it's not simply because, I'm a snob and want to boast about having an original. Rather, it's because I want something that has a specific history. In the case of artwork, the history is special indeed. The philosopher Denis Dutton in his wonderful book "The Art Instinct" makes the case that, "The value of an artwork is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation." And that could explain the difference between an original and a forgery. They may look alike, but they have a different history. The original is typically the product of a creative act, the forgery isn't. I think this approach can explain differences in people's taste in art.
Vratimo se sada na umjetnost. Ja bih volio Chagallovo djelo. Obožavam Chagallov rad. Ako mi netko želi pokloniti nešto nakon konferencije, možete mi kupiti Chagalla. Ali ne želim duplikat, čak i ako ih ne mogu razlikovati. To nije zato ili nije samo zato što sam snob i želim se hvaliti originalom. Prije je zato jer želim nešto što ima specifičnu povijest. U slučaju umjetnosti povijest je zaista posebna. Filozof Denis Dutton je u svojoj sjajnoj knjzi "Instinkt umjetnosti" objasnio kako: "Vrijednost umjetnosti leži u pretpostavci da je ljudski rad osnova njenog stvaranja." To bi moglo objasniti razliku između originala i krivotvorine. Možda izgledaju slično, ali imaju drugačiju povijest. Original je tipično proizvod kreativnog rada, dok krivotvorina nije. Mislim da ovaj pristup može objasniti razlike u ljudskom ukusu za umjetnost.
This is a work by Jackson Pollock. Who here likes the work of Jackson Pollock? Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them? They just don't like it. I'm not going to make a claim about who's right, but I will make an empirical claim about people's intuitions, which is that, if you like the work of Jackson Pollock, you'll tend more so than the people who don't like it to believe that these works are difficult to create, that they require a lot of time and energy and creative energy. I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example because there's a young American artist who paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock, and her work was worth many tens of thousands of dollars -- in large part because she's a very young artist.
Ovo je rad Jacksona Pollocka. Tko ovdje voli rad Jacksona Pollocka? OK. Kome ovdje ovo ne znači ništa? Jednostavno vam se ne sviđa. Neću tvrditi tko je u pravu, ali ću iznijeti empirijsku tvrdnju o ljudskoj intuiciji koja je takva, da ako voliš rad Jackona Pollocka, imat ćeš veće tendencije, nego ljudi koji ga ne vole, vjerovati da su ova djela teška za napraviti, da zahtijevaju puno vremena, energije i kreativne energije. Namjerno koristim Jacksona Pollocka kao primjer jer postoji mlada američka umjetnica koja slika vrlo sličnim stilom kao Jackson Pollock i njen rad je bio vrijedan desetke tisuće dolara -- velikim dijelom zato što je jako mlada umjetnica.
This is Marla Olmstead who did most of her work when she was three years old. The interesting thing about Marla Olmstead is her family made the mistake of inviting the television program 60 Minutes II into their house to film her painting. And they then reported that her father was coaching her. When this came out on television, the value of her art dropped to nothing. It was the same art, physically, but the history had changed.
Ovo je Marla Olmstead koja je napravila većinu svog rada dok je imala tri godine. Ono što je zanimljivo u slučaju Marle Olmstead je da je njena obitelj napravila pogrešku pozvavši televizijsku emisiju 60 minuta II u svoju kuću kako bi je snimili kako slika. Nakon toga su izvijestili da ju je otac navodio. Kada je ovo objavljeno na televiziji, vrijednost njenog djela je pala na nulu. Umjetnost je bila fizički ista, ali se povijest promijenila.
I've been focusing now on the visual arts, but I want to give two examples from music. This is Joshua Bell, a very famous violinist. And the Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten decided to enlist him for an audacious experiment. The question is: How much would people like Joshua Bell, the music of Joshua Bell, if they didn't know they were listening to Joshua Bell? So he got Joshua Bell to take his million dollar violin down to a Washington D.C. subway station and stand in the corner and see how much money he would make. And here's a brief clip of this. (Violin music) After being there for three-quarters of an hour, he made 32 dollars. Not bad. It's also not good. Apparently to really enjoy the music of Joshua Bell, you have to know you're listening to Joshua Bell. He actually made 20 dollars more than that, but he didn't count it. Because this woman comes up -- you see at the end of the video -- she comes up. She had heard him at the Library of Congress a few weeks before at this extravagant black-tie affair. So she's stunned that he's standing in a subway station. So she's struck with pity. She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.
Fokusirao sam se na vizualne umjetnosti, ali želim dati dva primjera iz glazbe. Ovo je Joshua Bell, vrlo poznati violinist. Reporter Washington Posta Gene Weingarten ga je odlučio angažirati za vrlo odvažan eksperiment. Pitanje je koliko ljudi će se svidjeti Joshua Bell, njegova glazba, ako ne znaju da ga slušaju. Tako je nagovorio Joshuu Bella da uzme svoju milijunsku violinu na washingtonsku stanicu podzemne željeznice kako bi stajao na uglu i vidio koliko će novaca zaraditi. Ovo je kratki isječak. (Glazba violine) Nakon što je tamo stajao 45 minuta, zaradio je 32 dolara. Nije loše. Također, nije ni dobro. Očito, kako bi stvarno uživao u glazbi Joshue Bella, moraš znati kako slušaš Joshuu Bella. Zapravo je zaradio 20 dolara više od toga, ali ih nisu uračunali. Jer je došla jedna žena -- ovo vidite na kraju videa -- žena prilazi. Ono ga je slušala u Kongresnoj knjižnici par tjedana prije na ekstravagantnom događaju crnih kravata. Bila je zapanjena da on stoji na stanici podzemne željeznice. Osjetila je sažaljenje. Posegnula je u svoju torbicu i dala mu 20 dolara.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
The second example from music is from John Cage's modernist composition, "4'33"." As many of you know, this is the composition where the pianist sits at a bench, opens up the piano and sits and does nothing for four minutes and 33 seconds -- that period of silence. And people have different views on this. But what I want to point out is you can buy this from iTunes. (Laughter) For a dollar 99, you can listen to that silence, which is different than other forms of silence.
Drugi primjer iz glazbe dolazi iz John Cageove modernističke kompozicije, "4'33''." Kao što mnogi od vas znaju ovo je kompozicija gdje pijanist sjedi na klupici, otvori klavir i sjedi i ne radi ništa 4 minute i 33 sekunde -- razdoblje tišine. Ljudi imaju drugačije poglede o tome. Ono što želim istaknuti je da se može kupiti na iTunesu. (Smijeh) Po cijeni od 1,99 dolara, možete slušati tu tišinu koja je drugačija od ostalih oblika tišine.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now I've been talking so far about pleasure, but what I want to suggest is that everything I've said applies as well to pain. And how you think about what you're experiencing, your beliefs about the essence of it, affect how it hurts. One lovely experiment was done by Kurt Gray and Dan Wegner. What they did was they hooked up Harvard undergraduates to an electric shock machine. And they gave them a series of painful electric shocks. So it was a series of five painful shocks. Half of them are told that they're being given the shocks by somebody in another room, but the person in the other room doesn't know they're giving them shocks. There's no malevolence, they're just pressing a button. The first shock is recorded as very painful. The second shock feels less painful, because you get a bit used to it. The third drops, the fourth, the fifth. The pain gets less. In the other condition, they're told that the person in the next room is shocking them on purpose -- knows they're shocking them. The first shock hurts like hell. The second shock hurts just as much, and the third and the fourth and the fifth. It hurts more if you believe somebody is doing it to you on purpose.
Dosad sam pričao o užitku, ali želim ustvrditi kako se sve što sam rekao odnosi i na bol. I kako razmišljate o onome što proživljavate, vaša vjerovanja o njegovoj srži utječe na vašu bol. Jedan krasan eksperiment su napravili Kurt Gray i Dan Wegner. Spojili su harvardske studente na uređaj za električne udare. Zadali su im seriju bolnih električnih udara. Dakle, seriju od pet bolnih udara. Polovici njih je rečeno kako im udarce zadaje osoba u drugoj sobi, ali osoba u drugoj sobi ne zna da im zadaje udarce. Nema zlonamjernosti, jednostavno stišću gumb. Prvi udarac je bio zabilježen kao jako bolan. Drugi je bio malo manje bolan, jer su se malo naviknuli. Treći još pada, četvrti, peti. Bol se smanjuje. U drugoj okolnosti rečeno im je da im osoba u susjednoj sobi zadaje udarce namjerno -- zna da im zadaje udarce. Prvi udarac ekstremno boli. Drugi udarac boli jednako kao i treći i četvrti i peti. Boli više ako vjerujete da druga osoba to radi namjerno.
The most extreme example of this is that in some cases, pain under the right circumstances can transform into pleasure. Humans have this extraordinarily interesting property that will often seek out low-level doses of pain in controlled circumstances and take pleasure from it -- as in the eating of hot chili peppers and roller coaster rides. The point was nicely summarized by the poet John Milton who wrote, "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven."
Najekstremniji primjer ovoga je da u nekim slučajevima, pod pravim okolnostima bol može prijeći u užitak. Ljudi imaju izvanredno svojstvo da često traže niske doze boli u kontroliranim uvjetima i uživaju u tome -- kao jedenje ljutih feferona i vožnji vlakovima smrti. Bit je dobro sažeta od strane pjesnika Johna Miltona koj je napisao: "Um je posebno mjesto, sam može načiniti raj od pakla i pakao od raja."
And I'll end with that. Thank you.
S ovime ću završiti. Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)