So why do you think the rich should pay more in taxes? Why did you buy the latest iPhone? Why did you pick your current partner? And why did so many people vote for Donald Trump? What were the reasons, why did they do it?
Dakle, zašto smatrate da bi bogati trebalo da plaćaju veći porez? Zašto ste kupili poslednji ajfon? Zašto ste odabrali trenutnog partnera? I zašto je toliko ljudi glasalo za Donalda Trampa? Koji su razlozi, zašto su to uradili?
So we ask this kind of question all the time, and we expect to get an answer. And when being asked, we expect ourselves to know the answer, to simply tell why we did as we did. But do we really know why? So when you say that you prefer George Clooney to Tom Hanks, due to his concern for the environment, is that really true? So you can be perfectly sincere and genuinely believe that this is the reason that drives your choice, but to me, it may still feel like something is missing. As it stands, due to the nature of subjectivity, it is actually very hard to ever prove that people are wrong about themselves.
Dakle, slična pitanja stalno postavljamo, i očekujemo da dobijemo odgovor. A kada nas upitaju, očekujemo od sebe da znamo odgovor, da prosto kažemo zašto smo uradili kako smo uradili. Međutim, da li zaista znamo zašto? Dakle, kada kažete da vam se više sviđa Džordž Kluni od Toma Henksa, zbog njegove brige za okolinu, da li je to zaista istina? Možete da budete krajnje iskreni i da istinski verujete da je to razlog iza vašeg izbora, ali meni se i dalje može činiti da nešto nedostaje. Poznato je da je zbog prirode subjektivnosti zapravo veoma teško uopšte dokazati da ljudi greše o sebi.
So I'm an experimental psychologist, and this is the problem we've been trying to solve in our lab. So we wanted to create an experiment that would allow us to challenge what people say about themselves, regardless of how certain they may seem. But tricking people about their own mind is hard. So we turned to the professionals. The magicians. So they're experts at creating the illusion of a free choice. So when they say, "Pick a card, any card," the only thing you know is that your choice is no longer free. So we had a few fantastic brainstorming sessions with a group of Swedish magicians, and they helped us create a method in which we would be able to manipulate the outcome of people's choices. This way we would know when people are wrong about themselves, even if they don't know this themselves. So I will now show you a short movie showing this manipulation. So it's quite simple. The participants make a choice, but I end up giving them the opposite. And then we want to see: How did they react, and what did they say? So it's quite simple, but see if you can spot the magic going on. And this was shot with real participants, they don't know what's going on.
Dakle, ja sam eksperimentalni psiholog, i ovo je problem koji smo pokušali da rešimo u laboratoriji. Hteli smo da osmislimo eksperiment koji bi nam omogućio da dovedemo u pitanje ono što ljudi govore o sebi, bez obzira na to koliko ubeđenim se činili. Međutim, teško je obmanuti ljude o njihovom sopstvenom umu. Pa smo se obratili profesionalcima. Mađioničarima. Oni su stručnjaci za stvaranje iluzije slobodnog izbora. Pa, kad kažu: "Izaberite kartu, bilo koju kartu", jedino što znate je da vaš izbor više nije slobodan. Pa smo imali nekoliko sjajnih sesija grupnog mozganja sa ekipom švedskih mađioničara, i pomogli su nam da osmislimo metod kojim bismo bili u stanju da manipulišemo rezultatima ljudskih izbora. Tako bismo znali kada ljudi greše o sebi, čak i kad sami nisu svesni toga. Dakle, sada ću da vam pokažem kratak film koji prikazuje ovu manipulaciju. Krajnje je prosto. Učesnici prave izbor, ali ja im na kraju dam suprotno od toga. A zatim smo želeli da vidimo: kako su reagovali i šta su rekli? Krajnje je prosto, no vidite da li možete da zapazite čaroliju na delu. A ovo je snimljeno sa pravim učesnicima, oni ne znaju šta se dešava.
(Video) Petter Johansson: Hi, my name's Petter.
(Video) Peter Johanson: Zdravo, zovem se Peter.
Woman: Hi, I'm Becka.
Žena: Zdravo, ja sam Beka.
PJ: I'm going to show you pictures like this. And you'll have to decide which one you find more attractive.
PJ: Pokazaću ti slike slične ovoj. A ti moraš da odlučiš koja ti se više sviđa.
Becka: OK.
Beka: U redu.
PJ: And then sometimes, I will ask you why you prefer that face.
PJ: A zatim ću povremeno da te pitam zašto ti se to lice više sviđa.
Becka: OK.
Beka: U redu.
PJ: Ready? Becka: Yeah.
PJ: Spremna? Beka: Da.
PJ: Why did you prefer that one?
PJ: Zašto ti se taj više sviđa?
Becka: The smile, I think.
Beka: Zbog osmeha, mislim.
PJ: Smile.
PJ: Osmeh.
Man: One on the left. Again, this one just struck me. Interesting shot. Since I'm a photographer, I like the way it's lit and looks.
Čovek: Ona sleva. Opet, prosto ostavlja jači utisak. Zanimljiva fotografija. Kako sam fotograf, sviđa mi se osvetljenje i kako izgleda.
Petter Johansson: But now comes the trick.
Peter Johanson: Međutim, sledi trik.
(Video) Woman 1: This one.
(Video) Žena 1: Ova.
PJ: So they get the opposite of their choice. And let's see what happens.
PJ: Dakle, dobijaju suprotno od onog što su odabrali. I pogledajmo šta će da se desi.
Woman 2: Um ... I think he seems a little more innocent than the other guy.
Žena 2: Hm... Mislim da izgleda malo nevinije od drugog momka.
Man: The one on the left. I like her smile and contour of the nose and face. So it's a little more interesting to me, and her haircut.
Čovek: Ona sleva. Sviđa mi se njen osmeh i konture nosa i lica. Pa mi je malo zanimljivija, kao i njena frizura.
Woman 3: This one. I like the smirky look better.
Žena 3: Ova. Više mi se sviđa mangupski izgled.
PJ: You like the smirky look better?
PJ: Više ti se sviđa mangupski izgled.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
Woman 3: This one.
Žena 3: Ova.
PJ: What made you choose him?
PJ: Zašto si odabrala njega?
Woman 3: I don't know, he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.
Žena 3: Ne znam, malo više liči na Hobita.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
PJ: And what happens in the end when I tell them the true nature of the experiment? Yeah, that's it. I just have to ask a few questions.
PJ: A šta se desi na kraju kada im saopštim pravu prirodu eksperimenta. Da, to je to. Samo moram da vam postavim neka pitanja.
Man: Sure.
Čovek: Naravno.
PJ: What did you think of this experiment, was it easy or hard?
PJ: Šta msilite o ovom eksperimentu: da li je bio lak ili težak?
Man: It was easy.
Čovek: Bio je lak.
PJ: During the experiments, I actually switched the pictures three times. Was this anything you noticed?
PJ: Tokom eksperimenta, zapravo sam zamenio slike tri puta. Da li je to nešto što ste primetili?
Man: No. I didn't notice any of that.
Čovek: Ne. Nisam primetio ništa od toga.
PJ: Not at all? Man: No. Switching the pictures as far as ...
PJ: Uopšte? Čovek: Ne. Zamenili ste slike kao...
PJ: Yeah, you were pointing at one of them but I actually gave you the opposite.
PJ: Da, pokazivali ste na jednu, ali ja sam vam dao suprotnu.
Man: The opposite one. OK, when you -- No. Shows you how much my attention span was.
Čovek: Suprotnu. U redu, kada ste - Ne. Pokazuje vam koliki mi je raspon pažnje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
PJ: Did you notice that sometimes during the experiment I switched the pictures?
PJ: Da li si primetila da sam povremeno tokom eksperimenta zamenio slike?
Woman 2: No, I did not notice that.
Žena 2: Ne, nisam to primetila.
PJ: You were pointing at one, but then I gave you the other one. No inclination of that happening?
PJ: Pokazivala si jednu, ali ja sam ti dao drugu. Nemaš naznaku da se to dogodilo?
Woman 2: No.
Žena 2: Ne.
Woman 2: I did not notice.
Žena 2: Nisam primetila.
(Laughs)
(Smeje se)
PJ: Thank you.
PJ: Hvala.
Woman 2: Thank you.
Žena: Hvala.
PJ: OK, so as you probably figured out now, the trick is that I have two cards in each hand, and when I hand one of them over, the black one kind of disappears into the black surface on the table. So using pictures like this, normally not more than 20 percent of the participants detect these tries. And as you saw in the movie, when in the end we explain what's going on, they're very surprised and often refuse to believe the trick has been made. So this shows that this effect is quite robust and a genuine effect. But if you're interested in self-knowledge, as I am, the more interesting bit is, OK, so what did they say when they explained these choices?
PJ: U redu, verovatno ste shvatili do sad, trik je da držim dve karte u svakoj ruci, a kada dodam jednu od njih, crna se nekako izgubi na crnoj površini stola. Dakle, upotrebom sličnih slika, obično ne više od 20% učesnika zapazi ovaj opit. I kao što ste videli na filmu, kada na kraju objasnimo šta se dešavalo, veoma su iznenađeni i često odbijaju da veruju da je došlo do trika. Dakle, ovo pokazuje da je dati efekat prilično snažan i autentičan. No, ako ste zainteresovani za samospoznaju kao ja, zanimljiviji je deo, u redu, pa šta su rekli kada su objašnjavali ove izbore?
So we've done a lot of analysis of the verbal reports in these experiments. And this graph simply shows that if you compare what they say in a manipulated trial with a nonmanipulated trial, that is when they explain a normal choice they've made and one where we manipulated the outcome, we find that they are remarkably similar. So they are just as emotional, just as specific, and they are expressed with the same level of certainty.
Pa smo uradili mnogo analiza verbalnih izveštaja tokom ovih eksperimenata. A ovaj grafikon prosto pokazuje da ako uporedite šta kažu u manipulisanom opitu sa nemanipulisanim opitom, to jest kad objašnjavaju normalan izbor koji su napravili i onaj u kom smo izmanipulisali rezultat, otkrili smo da su zapanjujuće slični. Dakle, jednako su emotivni, jednako specifični i izraženi su istim nivoom ubeđenosti.
So the strong conclusion to draw from this is that if there are no differences between a real choice and a manipulated choice, perhaps we make things up all the time.
Pa je snažan zaključak koji smo izvukli iz ovoga to da ako nema razlike između stvarnog izbora i izmanipulisanog izbora, onda možda stalno izmišljamo stvari.
But we've also done studies where we try to match what they say with the actual faces. And then we find things like this. So here, this male participant, he preferred the girl to the left, he ended up with the one to the right. And then, he explained his choice like this. "She is radiant. I would rather have approached her at the bar than the other one. And I like earrings." And whatever made him choose the girl on the left to begin with, it can't have been the earrings, because they were actually sitting on the girl on the right. So this is a clear example of a post hoc construction. So they just explained the choice afterwards.
No radili smo i istraživanja gde smo pokušali da povežemo to što su rekli sa stvarnim licima. I tad smo otkrili nešto slično ovome. Dakle, ovde, muškom učesniku se više svidela devojka sleva, završio je s onom zdesna. A onda je objasnio svoj izbor ovako. "Ona zrači. Pre bih prišao njoj u baru nego onoj drugoj. I sviđaju mi se minđuše." A zbog čega god da je odabrao devojku sleva u početku, nije moglo da bude zbog minđuša jer su one zapravo bile na devojci zdesna. Dakle, ovo je jasan primer post hoc konstrukcije. Dakle, prosto su naknadno objasnili izbor.
So what this experiment shows is, OK, so if we fail to detect that our choices have been changed, we will immediately start to explain them in another way. And what we also found is that the participants often come to prefer the alternative, that they were led to believe they liked. So if we let them do the choice again, they will now choose the face they had previously rejected. So this is the effect we call "choice blindness." And we've done a number of different studies -- we've tried consumer choices, choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
Dakle, šta nam ovaj eksperiment pokazuje, u redu, ako nismo u stanju da primetimo da su se naši izbori promenili, istog trena ćemo početi da ih objašnjavamo na drugi način. A takođe smo otkrili da se učesnicima često posle više sviđa alternativa, na koju smo ih naveli da im se sviđa. Pa, ako im omogućimo da ponovo biraju, odabraće lice koje su prethodno odbacili. Ovo je efekat koji nazivamo "zaslepljenost izborom". I uradili smo brojna različita istraživanja - isprobali smo izbore potrošača, izbore zasnovane na ukusu i mirisu, pa čak i probleme rezonovanja.
But what you all want to know is of course does this extend also to more complex, more meaningful choices? Like those concerning moral and political issues.
Međutim, svi vi naravno želite da znate da li se ovo odnosi na složenije, smislenije izbore? Poput onih koji se odnose na moralna i politička pitanja.
So the next experiment, it needs a little bit of a background. So in Sweden, the political landscape is dominated by a left-wing and a right-wing coalition. And the voters may move a little bit between the parties within each coalition, but there is very little movement between the coalitions. And before each elections, the newspapers and the polling institutes put together what they call "an election compass" which consists of a number of dividing issues that sort of separates the two coalitions. Things like if tax on gasoline should be increased or if the 13 months of paid parental leave should be split equally between the two parents in order to increase gender equality.
Dakle, sledeći eksperiment, potreban je kratak uvod za njega. Dakle, u Švedskoj političkom scenom dominiraju koalicije levog i desnog krila. A glasači mogu pomalo prelaziti između partija unutar svake koalicije, ali veoma malo ima prelazaka između koalicija. A pre svakih izbora, novine i instituti za anketiranje sastavljaju nešto što se zove "izborni komaps", koji se sastoji od niza pitanja koja izazivaju razdor, koja na neki način razdvajaju dve koalicije. Stvari poput da li treba uvećati porez na benzin ili da li bi 13 meseci porodiljskog trebalo podeliti ravnomerno između dva roditelja kako bi se uvećala rodna ravnopravnost.
So, before the last Swedish election, we created an election compass of our own. So we walked up to people in the street and asked if they wanted to do a quick political survey. So first we had them state their voting intention between the two coalitions. Then we asked them to answer 12 of these questions. They would fill in their answers, and we would ask them to discuss, so OK, why do you think tax on gas should be increased? And we'd go through the questions. Then we had a color coded template that would allow us to tally their overall score. So this person would have one, two, three, four five, six, seven, eight, nine scores to the left, so he would lean to the left, basically. And in the end, we also had them fill in their voting intention once more.
Dakle, pre poslednjih švedskih izbora, napravili smo sopstveni izborni kompas. Pa smo prilazili ljudima na ulici i pitali ih da li žele da ispune kratku političku anketu. Pa smo im prvo tražili da se izjasne kako će da glasaju između dve koalicije. Potom smo im tražili da odgovore na sledećih 12 pitanja. Ispisali bi svoje odgovore, a mi bismo tražili da diskutuju, dakle, u redu, zašto smatrate da bi trebalo uvećati porez na benzin? I prolazili bismo kroz pitanja. Potom smo imali obojeni šablon koji nam je omogućavao da izračunamo njihov ukupan zbir. Dakle, ova osoba je imala jedan, dva, tri, četiri, pet, šest, sedam, osam, devet poena levo, dakle on u suštini naginje levo. I na kraju smo im takođe ponovo tražili da napišu za koga nameravaju da glasaju.
But of course, there was also a trick involved. So first, we walked up to people, we asked them about their voting intention and then when they started filling in, we would fill in a set of answers going in the opposite direction. We would put it under the notepad. And when we get the questionnaire, we would simply glue it on top of the participant's own answer. So there, it's gone. And then we would ask about each of the questions: How did you reason here? And they'll state the reasons, together we will sum up their overall score. And in the end, they will state their voting intention again.
Međutim, naravno tu smo takođe imali trik. Dakle, prvo bismo prilazili ljudima, pitali ih o glasačkim namerama, a potom kad bi počeli da odgovoraju, mi bismo popunili niz odgovora u suprotnom smeru. Stavili bismo ih ispod notesa. A kada bismo dobili upitnik, prosto bismo zalepili naše odgovore preko odgovora učesnika. Dakle, eto, nema ga više. A potom bismo pitali o svakom pitanju: kako ste rezonovali ovde? A oni bi iznosili razloge, zajedno bismo sabirali njihov ukupan zbir. A potom bi na kraju ponovo iznosli glasačke namere.
So what we find first of all here, is that very few of these manipulations are detected. And they're not detected in the sense that they realize, "OK, you must have changed my answer," it was more the case that, "OK, I must've misunderstood the question the first time I read it. Can I please change it?" And even if a few of these manipulations were changed, the overall majority was missed. So we managed to switch 90 percent of the participants' answers from left to right, right to left, their overall profile.
Dakle, ovde smo pre svega otkrili da je veoma mali broj ovih manipulacija primećeno. A nisu primećene u smislu da su oni shvatali: "U redu, mora da ste mi izmenili odgovor", više se radilo o slučaju: "U redu, mora da sam pogrešno razumeo pitanje prvi put kad sam čitao. Mogu li, molim vas, da ga izmenim?" Čak iako je nekoliko ovih manipulacija izmenjeno, velika većina nije. Pa smo uspeli da prebacimo 90 procenata odgovora učesnika od levo ka desno, od desno ka levo; njihov celokupan profil.
And what happens then when they are asked to motivate their choices? And here we find much more interesting verbal reports than compared to the faces. People say things like this, and I'll read it to you. So, "Large-scale governmental surveillance of email and internet traffic ought to be permissible as means to combat international crime and terrorism." "So you agree to some extent with this statement." "Yes." "So how did you reason here?" "Well, like, as it is so hard to get at international crime and terrorism, I think there should be those kinds of tools." And then the person remembers an argument from the newspaper in the morning. "Like in the newspaper today, it said they can like, listen to mobile phones from prison, if a gang leader tries to continue his crimes from inside. And I think it's madness that we have so little power that we can't stop those things when we actually have the possibility to do so." And then there's a little bit back and forth in the end: "I don't like that they have access to everything I do, but I still think it's worth it in the long run." So, if you didn't know that this person just took part in a choice blindness experiment, I don't think you would question that this is the true attitude of that person.
A šta se desilo potom kada smo im tražili da opravdaju svoje izbore? I tu smo otkrili daleko zanimljivije verbalne izveštaje nego u poređenju sa licima. Ljudi govore nešto poput ovoga, pročitaću vam. Dakle: "Opsežan vladin nadzor imejlova i internet sobraćaja bi trebalo omogućiti kao sredstvo borbe protiv međunardnog kriminala i terorizma." "Dakle, slažete se u određenoj meri sa izjavom." "Da." "Dakle, kako ste rezonovali ovde?" "Pa, kao, pošto je teško izboriti se sa međunarodnim kriminalom i terorizmom, smatram da bi slična oruđa trebalo da postoje." A potom bi se osoba setila argumenta iz jutrošnjih novina. "Kao u današnjim novinama kažu da kao mogu da prisluškuju mobilne telefone u zatvoru, ukoliko vođa bande pokuša da nastavi svoj zločin iznutra. I smatram da je nenormalno da imamo tako malo moći da sprečimo slične pojave, kada zapravo imamo mogućnost da to uradimo." A potom bude tu oklevanja na kraju: "Ne sviđa mi se što imaju pristup svemu što radim, ali i dalje smatram da se isplati na duže staze." Dakle, ukoliko ne biste znali da je ova osoba upravo učestvovala u opitu zaslepljenosti izborom, mislim da ne biste dovodili u pitanje to da je ovo istinski stav date osobe.
And what happens in the end, with the voting intention? What we find -- that one is also clearly affected by the questionnaire. So we have 10 participants shifting from left to right or from right to left. We have another 19 that go from clear voting intention to being uncertain. Some go from being uncertain to clear voting intention. And then there is a number of participants staying uncertain throughout. And that number is interesting because if you look at what the polling institutes say the closer you get to an election, the only people that are sort of in play are the ones that are considered uncertain. But we show there is a much larger number that would actually consider shifting their attitudes.
I šta se na kraju desi sa glasačkim namerama? Otkrili smo - da je i na to upitnik jasno uticao. Dakle, imamo 10 učesnika koji su se prebacili sleva ka desno ili zdesna ka levo. Imamo još 19 koji su prešli iz jasne glasačke namere u neopredeljenost. Neki pređu iz neopredeljenosti u jasnu glasačku nameru. A potom tu je niz učesnika koji ostaju neopredeljeni sve vreme. A taj broj je zanimljiv jer ako pogledate šta anketni instituti govore što se više bližite izborima, jedini ljudi koji su nekako u igri su oni koje smatraju neopredeljenim. Ali mi pokazujemo da je mnogo veći broj onih koji bi razmatrali izmenu svojih stavova.
And here I must point out, of course, that you are not allowed to use this as an actual method to change people's votes before an election, and we clearly debriefed them afterwards and gave them every opportunity to change back to whatever they thought first. But what this shows is that if you can get people to see the opposite view and engage in a conversation with themselves, that could actually make them change their views. OK.
I ovde moram da istaknem, naravno, da vam nije dozvoljeno da ovo koristite kao stvarni metod izmene glasova ljudi pre izbora, i jasno smo ih kasnije obavestili i dali im puno pravo da se vrate na prvobitno razmišljanje. Međutim, ovo pokazuje da ako uspete da navedete ljude da sagledaju suprotan stav i da se uključe u razgovor sa sobom da ih tako zapravo možete navesti da izmene svoje stavove. U redu.
So what does it all mean? What do I think is going on here? So first of all, a lot of what we call self-knowledge is actually self-interpretation. So I see myself make a choice, and then when I'm asked why, I just try to make as much sense of it as possible when I make an explanation. But we do this so quickly and with such ease that we think we actually know the answer when we answer why. And as it is an interpretation, of course we sometimes make mistakes. The same way we make mistakes when we try to understand other people. So beware when you ask people the question "why" because what may happen is that, if you asked them, "So why do you support this issue?" "Why do you stay in this job or this relationship?" -- what may happen when you ask why is that you actually create an attitude that wasn't there before you asked the question.
Šta sve ovo znači? Šta ja mislim da se ovde dešava? Dakle, pre svega, mnogo toga što nazivamo samospoznajom je zapravo interpretacija o sebi. Dakle, uhvatim sebe kako pravim izbor a kad me potom upitaju zašto, prosto pokušavam da mu dam što je više smisla moguće prilikom obrazlaganja. Međutim, radimo to toliko brzo i tolikom lakoćom da smatramo kako zapravo znamo odgovor kada nas upitaju zašto. A kako se radi o interpretaciji, naravno da ponekad grešimo. Na isti način kao što grešimo kada pokušavamo da razumemo druge ljude. Dakle, pazite kada ljudima postavljate pitanje "zašto" jer može da se desi, ako ih upitate: "Dakle, zašto podržavate ovo pitanje?" "Zašto ostajete na ovom poslu ili u ovoj vezi?" - ono što se može desiti kada upitate zašto je da zapravo kreirate stav koji nije postojao pre nego što ste postavili pitanje.
And this is of course important in your professional life, as well, or it could be. If, say, you design something and then you ask people, "Why do you think this is good or bad?" Or if you're a journalist asking a politician, "So, why did you make this decision?" Or if indeed you are a politician and try to explain why a certain decision was made.
A ovo je naravno važno i u vašem profesionalnom životu, ili bi moglo da bude. Ako, recimo, dizajnirate nešto i potom upitate ljude: "Zašto ovo smatrate dobrim ili lošim?" Ili ako ste novinar koji postavlja pitanje političaru: "Dakle, zašto ste doneli ovu odluku?" Ili ako ste uistinu političar i pokušavate da objasnite zašto je donešena neka odluka.
So this may all seem a bit disturbing. But if you want to look at it from a positive direction, it could be seen as showing, OK, so we're actually a little bit more flexible than we think. We can change our minds. Our attitudes are not set in stone. And we can also change the minds of others, if we can only get them to engage with the issue and see it from the opposite view. And in my own personal life, since starting with this research -- So my partner and I, we've always had the rule that you're allowed to take things back. Just because I said I liked something a year ago, doesn't mean I have to like it still. And getting rid of the need to stay consistent is actually a huge relief and makes relational life so mush easier to live.
Dakle, sve ovo može da se čini malčice uznemirujuće. Ali ako želite da ovo posmatrate iz pozitivnog ugla, može se činiti kao da otkriva, u redu, dakle, svi smo mi zapravo malo fleksibilniji nego što mislimo. Možemo da promenimo mišljenje. Naši stavovi nisu zacementirani. A možemo i da promenimo mišljenja drugih, ako ih samo uspemo navesti da se unesu u pitanje i da ga sagledaju iz suprotnog ugla. A u mom ličnom životu, otkad sam započeo ovo istraživanje - Dakle, moj partner i ja, oduvek smo imali pravilo da možete da povučete izrečeno. Samo zato što sam prošle godine rekao da mi se nešto sviđa, ne mora da znači da mi se i dalje sviđa. A oslobađanje od potrebe da ostanete dosledni je zapravo ogromno olakšanje zbog koga je zajednički život lakši.
Anyway, so the conclusion must be: know that you don't know yourself. Or at least not as well as you think you do.
Kako god, dakle, zaključak mora da bude: znajte da ne poznajete sebe. Ili bar ne tako dobro kao što mislite da poznajete.
Thanks.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)