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.
今天我要講的是 有關日常生活的快樂 但我想先說一則關於 一位特殊又可怕的人的故事 他是赫曼.戈林(Hermann Goering) 戈林是希特勒在二戰時期的副司令官 也是他指定的接班人 和希特勒一樣 戈林也自認自己是一位愛好藝術的收藏家 他在二戰時期,走遍歐洲 竊取,強奪,偶爾購買 不同的畫作作為私人收藏 而當中他最想擁有的是維梅爾(Vermeer)的作品 希特勒收藏了其中兩幅,而他一幅也沒有 後來他終於找上了一位藝術品經銷商 一位名叫漢‧凡‧米格倫(Han van Meegeren)的荷蘭畫商 他賣給他一幅完美的維梅爾的作品 該作品估計現值一千萬美元 該作品也是戈林的最愛
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.
二戰結束時 戈林被捕,在紐倫堡審判 而最終被判死刑 後來盟軍審查了他的收藏品 找到那些畫作 逮捕了當時販售畫作給他的人 某天荷蘭警方到阿姆斯特丹 逮捕了凡‧米格倫 凡‧米格倫被控叛國罪 叛國罪是會被判處死刑 米格倫在監獄服刑的六星期裡 他坦承犯罪 但他並非認了叛國罪 他說:「我並沒有販賣偉大的畫作 給那個納粹。 那是我自己畫的,我是一名仿畫家。」 沒有人相信他 然後他說:「我可以證明的。 給我一些畫布和顏料, 我可以畫出一幅 比我賣給那令人厭惡的納粹更好的維梅爾作品。 我還需要酒和嗎啡,因為這樣我才能工作。」 (笑聲) 所以他們給了他這些東西 他也畫出了一幅美麗的維梅爾畫作 後來叛國的罪名就撤銷了 他被判了一個較輕的偽造罪 判刑一年 死後成為荷蘭人民的英雄 關於凡‧米格倫還有很多事情可以說 但我想回來談戈林 照片裡的他在紐倫堡被審問
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.
戈林,據所有的罪狀,是一個可怕的人 就算是對納粹分子而言,他還是個可怕的人 他的美籍審問官形容他 是一名友善的精神變態者 但各位可以對他感到同情的是 他的反應 當他被告知他最愛的畫作 其實是幅仿畫 據他的傳記作者所說 「他看上去好像是 他第一次發現有世界上有邪惡的事。」 (笑聲) 之後他很快地就自殺了 他後來發現 他原先以為的這幅畫 事實上是這一幅 這看起來是相同的 但來源不同,這是完全不同的畫作
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.
不單是他感到驚訝 某次凡‧米格倫受訊時,他不由自主地說出 他吹噓所有其他藝術家所創作的 偉大的畫作 都是他一個人所畫 其中特別是《在伊默斯的晚餐》 這幅被視為是維梅爾最優秀的作品,他的鉅作 這幅眾人願意從世界各地前去觀賞的作品 其實是幅仿畫 不是這一幅,而是這一幅 當真相被發現後 這幅畫失去了價值,也從博物館裡撤下
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.
為什麼會這樣? 心理學家們,為什麼來源如此重要? 為何我們對於所知的事物 來自何處的反應如此大? 大部分的人會說一個答案 很多社會學家像是Veblen和Wolfe會認為 我們之所以如此看重事物來自何處 是因為我們很勢利,我們看重地位 除此之外 如果你想展現自己的財力和權力 當然擁有一幅真跡會比擁有一幅仿畫來的好 因為和仿畫比起來,真跡只會越來越少 我不否認這或多或少有些關聯 但我今天想告訴各位的是 這當中還有別的原因 我想讓各位知道 人類,其實就某些層面而言,我們是天生的本質主義者 我的意思是 我們對於物件的反應不只是我們看見他們 感受到他們,或聽見他們 相反地,我們的反應來自我們對該物件的認知 他們本質,他們的來源 他們的材質,以及他們的潛在特性 我想說這是真實的 不單是我們如何看待物品 而是我們對物品的反應
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.
我想傳達的是,快樂其實是深層的 這並非 只針對像是藝術這種較高層次的快樂 而是即便是看似最簡單的快樂 也都受到我們對於物品潛在本質的認知的影響 拿食物來說 各位想吃這塊肉嗎? 一個好的答案是「要看這是什麼肉?」 如果不是牛肉,而是豬肉,某些人會吃 如果不是豬肉,而是牛肉,也有某些人會吃 如果是老鼠肉 或人肉,極少數的人也會吃 而如果是一塊奇怪顏色的豆腐,也有某些人會吃 這一點都不需要驚訝
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.
更有趣的是 這塊肉對我們來說味道如何 取決於我們認為我們在吃什麼 以幼童當作例子來看 要如何讓孩童 不僅僅能多吃紅蘿蔔和多喝牛奶 更要讓他們在吃紅蘿蔔和喝牛奶時覺得快樂 -- 覺得這兩樣東西更好吃? 很簡單,你就告訴他們這兩樣東西是從麥當勞買來的 他們相信麥當勞的食物比較好吃 這點讓他們覺得所吃的東西比較美味
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.
那要如何讓成人真正享受紅酒呢? 非常簡單: 就把酒從很貴的酒瓶倒出來 現在有幾十個,可能是上百個研究顯示 如果你相信你在喝昂貴的東西 你會覺得它的味道更好 最近有個用神經科學方式的實驗 他們讓人躺進dMRI掃描儀 當人躺在那裡,通過一根管子 他們可以喝酒 而在他們面前的螢幕則會顯示關於他們喝的酒的資訊 每一個人 喝的都是同樣的酒 但如果你相信你在喝昂貴的酒 大腦掌管快樂和回報的區塊 就像點亮聖誕樹一樣興奮起來 這不只是你說你比較快樂,或你比較喜歡 而是你用不同的方式在感受這件事
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.
就性別來說 這是我曾用在某些研究裡的刺激方式 如果單純讓人們看這些照片 他們會說這些人相當地有魅力 但你認為他們多有魅力 多性感,多麼令你覺得浪漫 關鍵在於你覺得你正在看誰 你也許認為左邊這張圖是男性 右邊這張圖是女性 但如果這樣的認知是錯誤的,那將是完全不同的感受 (笑聲) 如果他們比各位想的還要年輕或年長 也會有不同的結果 如果你發現你用慾望的角度看的人 其實是你的兒子或女兒 或你的母親或父親的變裝照 感受也是截然不同的 獲悉某人是你的親人通常會扼殺掉慾望 也許其中最令人振奮的發現是 心理學上的快樂 是你看起來比外表更好看 如果你喜歡某人,你看他們就會覺得比較好看 這就為何在幸福的婚姻裡 配偶們都會認為他們的另一半 遠比別人認為的還要好看許多
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
一個特別典型的例子 是神經系統疾病,稱做卡波格拉斯症候群 卡波格拉斯症候群是一種精神疾病 讓人有特定的幻覺 卡波格拉斯症候群的病人 相信這世界上他們最愛的人 被人給完美的冒充了 卡波格拉斯症候群常有悲慘的事 他們把他們最愛的人給殺害 因為他們相信他們殺害的是一位冒充者 但至少有一個病例 一位卡波格拉斯症候的病人有了美滿的結局 這是1931年的一個紀錄 研究裡一位患有卡波格拉斯症候群的女性 抱怨她那位天資不足且缺乏魅力的情人 但這是在她罹患卡波格拉斯症候群之前 在她罹患此精神疾病後,「她開心的說 她發現他擁有兩倍的優點 是一位富有,強健,貴族般的情人。」 當然,她口中說的是同一位男人 但她卻用不同的眼光看他
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.
第三個例子 談談消費產品 你喜歡東西的其中一個原因可能是其功用 你可以把鞋穿在腳上;你可以用這套高球球具打高爾夫球 而嚼泡泡糖則對你一點用處也沒有 但這三樣東西 根據他們的來歷 都有超乎其功用的價值 這套高球球具原是甘迺迪所有 在一次拍賣會上以七十五萬美元賣出 這泡泡糖是流行明星小甜甜布蘭妮嚼過的 後來賣了幾百塊美元 事實上,心愛的人吃過的食物 也是很有市場的 (笑聲) 這雙鞋可能是三樣裡最有價值的 根據未經證實的報導 一位沙烏地阿拉伯的富翁花了一千萬美元 賣了這雙鞋 這就是那雙在幾年前在伊拉克 一場記者會上丟布希的鞋子
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
而這種物品產生的吸引力 並非只發生在有名的物品 我們每一個人,大部分的人 都有某些東西是無法被取代的 這些東西的價值來自於物品的背景 -- 也許是你的婚戒,也是你孩子嬰兒時穿的鞋 -- 所以如果東西遺失了,你無法找回 你可能可以找到看起來或摸起來類似的物品 但你無法找回一模一樣的東西 與我的同事George Newman和Gil Diesendruck一起 我們希望了解是什麼樣的因素,什麼樣的背景,原因 會讓人喜歡物品 所以在我們某一個實驗裡 我們請人們說出他們喜歡的名人 一位他們崇拜的還在世的人
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."
其中有人回答喬治克隆尼 然後我們問他們 「你願意花多少錢買喬治克隆尼的毛衣?」 答案是一筆相當多的金額 -- 比起買一件全新的毛衣還要多 也比你不崇拜的人所擁有的毛衣還多 然後我們問了其他的主題 我們給了他們不同的限制 還有不同的條件 例如,我們告訴某些人 「聽好,你能買那件毛衣 但你不能告訴任何人你擁有那件毛衣 然後你也不能把毛衣再拍賣出去。」 該件毛衣的價值下跌了 這說明了我們喜歡這件毛衣的其中一個原因 但真正造成影響的是 你告訴人們:「看,你可以再把毛衣賣出去,你可以吹捧毛衣的價值 但在你得到毛衣之前 這毛衣已經完全洗乾淨了。」 這點造成毛衣的價值大跌 如同我太太說的:「你已經把克隆尼的味道洗掉了。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我們回來談藝術 我喜歡夏卡爾,我喜歡夏卡爾的作品 如果在座有人想在演講結束後送我禮物 可以送我夏卡爾的東西 但即便我分辨不出差別 我也不要複製品 這不是因為,不是單純因為, 我是一個勢力的人,想吹噓自己擁有一幅真跡 而是因為我想要擁有一件帶有特殊意義的東西 這些藝術作品 他們的歷史背景是非常特別的 哲學家Denis Dutton 在他精彩的著作《The Art Instinct》 說明了「藝術作品的價值 存在於人類行為中創造力的假設。」 這點足以解釋 真跡和仿畫的不同 真品和複製品看起來相同,但他們擁有不同的歷史背景 真品是創作出來的產物 而複製品則不是 這個理論可以解釋 人們在藝術品味上的差別
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.
這是Jackson Pollock的作品 在座有誰喜歡Jackson Pollock的作品的呢? 好,那在座有人對這作品一點都不感興趣的呢? 他們不喜歡這件作品 我不會說明到底哪一方是對的 但我會做一項關於 人類意念的實證說明 也就是說,如果你喜歡Jackson Pollock的作品 你會比那些不喜歡他作品的人 更願意去相信這些作品是很困難才完成的 這需要花上很多的時間和體力 還有創造力 我刻意用Jackson Pollock當作例子 因為有一位年輕的美國藝術家 她也用和Jackson Pollock相同的手法畫畫 她的作品 價值上萬塊美金 -- 而大部分的原因是因為她是一位非常年輕的藝術家
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.
這位是Marla Olmstead 在她三歲時她完成了她大部分的作品 而關於Marla Olmstead一件有趣的事是 她家人犯了一個錯誤 就是邀請電視節目60 Minutes II到他們家中 拍攝她作畫的過程 然後他們報導出她父親在教導她作畫 當這段影片在電視上撥出 她的作品就失去了價值 這基本上是同樣的藝術 但作品的歷史背景被改變了
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.
剛才我一直在講視覺藝術 我要講兩個音樂的例子 這位是Joshua Bell,他是非常有名的小提琴家 華盛頓郵報的記者Gene Weingarten 打算要徵詢他做一項大膽的實驗 實驗是:大家願意花多少錢在Joshua Bell身上 花在Joshua Bell的音樂上 如果他們不知道他們在聆聽Joshua Bell的音樂? 他要Joshua Bell帶著他的百萬小提琴 下到華盛頓特區的地鐵站 站在角落看看他能賺到多少錢 這一小段影片 (小提琴音樂) 在那裡過了四十五分鐘 他賺了三十二塊錢 不差,但也不好 顯然要真正享受Joshua Bell的音樂 你也必須要知道你正在聽Joshua Bell演奏 他實際上多賺了20塊 但他沒去算 因為這位女士出現 各位看到在影片的最後 -- 她出現了 因為她在幾週前聽曾在美國國會圖書館 聽過他穿著正式的黑色禮服演奏 所以當看到他站在地鐵站裡,她嚇呆了 她感到可憐 她從皮包裡拿出二十塊錢給她
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
第二個音樂的例子是 是John Cage的現代創作曲 《四分三十三秒》 如在座各位所知 這首曲子,鋼琴演奏者坐在椅子 打開鋼琴 就坐在那兒,整整四分三十三秒都不做任何事 -- 這段時間是靜默的 大家對此曲有著不同的看法 但我想說的是 這可以從iTunes上購買這首曲子 (笑聲) 花上1.99美元 你可以聽那段靜默的音樂 這和其他形式的靜默是不同的
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我已經談論非常多有關快樂 但我想說的是 我剛說的每一件事也能套用在談痛苦上 以及如何認知我們的遭遇 我們對於事物本質的信念 還有是如何影響傷害的 一項很可愛的實驗 由Kurt Gray和Dan Wegner所執行 他們讓哈佛的大學生 戴上電子刺激工具 然後給他們一系列的疼痛電子刺激 所以是一系列五次的疼痛刺激 有一半的人有被告知會被在另一間房間的人 給予疼痛的刺激 但在另一間房間的人並不知道他們在給別人刺激 他們有沒有惡意,只是按一個按鈕 第一次的刺激記錄是非常痛苦 第二次則較輕,因為你感到有些習慣 第三次再減輕,第四次,第五次更輕微 痛苦隨次數遞減 而另一個情況是 受試者被告知在隔壁房間的人 是刻意在給他們電子刺激 -- 他們知道要刺激他們 第一次的刺激痛苦的像在地獄 第二次更痛苦 而第三第四和第五次 如果你相信某人士刻意要這麼做 感受到的痛苦則越來越多
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."
最極端的例子 是在某些情況下 痛苦在對的情況下 可以轉變為快樂 人類有非常有趣的特質 往往能在掌控的情況下 尋求找到最少量的痛苦 然後從中獲得快樂 -- 就像在吃辣椒 和玩雲霄飛車一樣 這觀點其實早就被 詩人John Milton所寫下 他寫道:「心有它自己的地方, 而它本身可以把地獄看作天堂, 或天堂看作地獄。」
And I'll end with that. Thank you.
就以這句話做結語,謝謝各位
(Applause)
(掌聲)