Today, I'm going to take you around the world in 18 minutes. My base of operations is in the U.S., but let's start at the other end of the map, in Kyoto, Japan, where I was living with a Japanese family while I was doing part of my dissertational research 15 years ago. I knew even then that I would encounter cultural differences and misunderstandings, but they popped up when I least expected it.
Danas ću vas u 18 minuta provesti svetom. Moja radna baza je u Americi. Ali počnimo na drugom kraju mape, u Kjotu u Japanu, gde sam živela sa jednom japanskom porodicom dok sam radila deo svog doktorskog istraživanja pre 15 godina. Čak i tada sam znala da ću se susresti sa kulturnim razlikama i nesporazumima, ali oni su se pojavili kad sam to najmanje očekivala.
On my first day, I went to a restaurant, and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar. After a pause, the waiter said, "One does not put sugar in green tea." "I know," I said. "I'm aware of this custom. But I really like my tea sweet." In response, he gave me an even more courteous version of the same explanation. "One does not put sugar in green tea." "I understand," I said, "that the Japanese do not put sugar in their green tea, but I'd like to put some sugar in my green tea." (Laughter) Surprised by my insistence, the waiter took up the issue with the manager. Pretty soon, a lengthy discussion ensued, and finally the manager came over to me and said, "I am very sorry. We do not have sugar." (Laughter) Well, since I couldn't have my tea the way I wanted it, I ordered a cup of coffee, which the waiter brought over promptly. Resting on the saucer were two packets of sugar.
Svog prvog dana otišla sam u restoran i naručila šolju zelenog čaja sa šećerom. Posle pauze, konobar je rekao, "Ne stavlja se šećer u zeleni čaj." "Znam", rekla sam. "Svesna sam tog običaja. Ali stvarno volim sladak čaj." Odgovorio mi je još ljubaznijom verzijom istog objašnjenja. "Ne stavlja se šećer u zeleni čaj." "Razumem", rekla sam, "da Japanci ne stavljaju šećer u zeleni čaj. Ali ja volim da stavim malo šećera kad pijem zeleni čaj." (smeh) Iznenađen mojom upornošću, konobar je o tome popričao sa menadžerom. Ubrzo je usledila duga diskusija i na kraju je menadžer došao do mene i rekao, "Veoma mi je žao. Nemamo šećera." (smeh) Pa, pošto nisam mogla da popijem čaj kako sam želela, naručila sam šolju kafe, koju je konobar veoma brzo doneo. Na tanjiriću su se nalazile dve kesice šećera.
My failure to procure myself a cup of sweet, green tea was not due to a simple misunderstanding. This was due to a fundamental difference in our ideas about choice. From my American perspective, when a paying customer makes a reasonable request based on her preferences, she has every right to have that request met. The American way, to quote Burger King, is to "have it your way," because, as Starbucks says, "happiness is in your choices." (Laughter) But from the Japanese perspective, it's their duty to protect those who don't know any better -- (Laughter) in this case, the ignorant gaijin -- from making the wrong choice. Let's face it: the way I wanted my tea was inappropriate according to cultural standards, and they were doing their best to help me save face.
Moj neuspeh da dođem do šolje slatkog zelenog čaja nije se desio zbog jednostavnog nerazumevanja. Desio se usled osnovne razlike u našim idejama o izboru. Iz moje američke perspektive, kada mušterija ima razuman zahtev zasnovan na svojim ukusima, ima svako pravo da joj se taj zahtev ispuni. Američki način, da citiram "Burger King", je da "bude po vašem", jer, kako "Starbucks" kaže, "sreća je u vašim izborima." (smeh) Ali iz japanske perspektive, njihova je dužnost da zaštite one koji ne znaju - (smeh) u ovom slučaju, neukog stranca, od pravljenja pogrešnog izbora. Shvatimo: način na koji sam želela čaj je neprikladan prema kulturnim standardima i oni su se veoma trudili da mi pomognu da sačuvam ugled.
Americans tend to believe that they've reached some sort of pinnacle in the way they practice choice. They think that choice, as seen through the American lens best fulfills an innate and universal desire for choice in all humans. Unfortunately, these beliefs are based on assumptions that don't always hold true in many countries, in many cultures. At times they don't even hold true at America's own borders. I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions and the problems associated with them. As I do so, I hope you'll start thinking about some of your own assumptions and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.
Amerikanci veruju da su dostigli nekakav vrhunac u svom načinu izbora. Oni misle da izbor, viđen kroz američke naočare, predstavlja urođenu i univerzalnu želju za izborom kod svih ljudi. Nažalost, ova uverenja se zasnivaju na pretpostavkama koje nisu uvek istinite u mnogim zemljama, u mnogim kulturama. Ponekad nisu tačne ni u okviru američkih granica. Želela bih da prodiskutujem o nekim od ovih pretpostavki i problemima koji su s njima povezani. Usput, nadam se da ćete početi da razmišljate o nekim svojim pretpostavkama i kako su ih vaša okruženja formirala.
First assumption: if a choice affects you, then you should be the one to make it. This is the only way to ensure that your preferences and interests will be most fully accounted for. It is essential for success. In America, the primary locus of choice is the individual. People must choose for themselves, sometimes sticking to their guns, regardless of what other people want or recommend. It's called "being true to yourself." But do all individuals benefit from taking such an approach to choice? Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies in which we sought the answer to this very question. In one study, which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco, we brought seven- to nine-year-old Anglo- and Asian-American children into the laboratory, and we divided them up into three groups.
Prva pretpostavka: ako izbor ima veze s vama onda bi trebalo vi da ga napravite. Ovo je jedini način da se osigura da će vaše preferencije i interesi u potpunosti da se uzmu u obzir. To je neophodno za uspeh. U Americi, primarni donosilac odluka je pojedinac. Ljudi moraju sami da biraju, ponekad slepo se pridržavajući toga, bez obzira šta drugi ljudi žele ili preporučuju. To se zove "biti dosledan sebi". Ali da li svi imaju koristi od takvog pristupa izboru? Mark Liper i ja smo uradili seriju istraživanja u kojima smo tražili odgovor na ovo pitanje. U jednom od njih, koje smo sproveli u japanskom kraju u San Francisku, doveli smo sedmo- i devetogodišnjake američkog i azijskog porekla u laboratoriju i podelili ih u tri grupe.
The first group came in, and they were greeted by Miss Smith, who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles. The kids got to choose which pile of anagrams they would like to do, and they even got to choose which marker they would write their answers with. When the second group of children came in, they were brought to the same room, shown the same anagrams, but this time Miss Smith told them which anagrams to do and which markers to write their answers with. Now when the third group came in, they were told that their anagrams and their markers had been chosen by their mothers. (Laughter) In reality, the kids who were told what to do, whether by Miss Smith or their mothers, were actually given the very same activity, which their counterparts in the first group had freely chosen.
Ušla je prva grupa i dočekala ih je gospođica Smit koja im je pokazala šest gomila anagrama. Deca su birala koju će gomilu anagrama da rešavaju. I čak su birala kojim flomasterom će upisivati svoje odgovore. Kada je ušla druga grupa dece, dovedena je u istu sobu, pokazani su im isti anagrami, ali ovog puta gospođica Smit im je rekla koje anagrame da rešavaju i kojim flomasterom da upisuju svoje odgovore. Kada je treća grupa ušla, rečeno im je da su anagrame i flomastere izabrale njihove majke. (smeh) U stvarnosti, deci kojima je rečeno šta da rade, bilo da je rekla gđica Smit ili njihove majke, data je potpuno ista aktivnost koju su njihovi drugari iz prve grupe sami odabrali.
With this procedure, we were able to ensure that the kids across the three groups all did the same activity, making it easier for us to compare performance. Such small differences in the way we administered the activity yielded striking differences in how well they performed. Anglo-Americans, they did two and a half times more anagrams when they got to choose them, as compared to when it was chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers. It didn't matter who did the choosing, if the task was dictated by another, their performance suffered. In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed when they were told that their mothers had been consulted. (Laughter) One girl named Mary said, "You asked my mother?"
Ovom procedurom smo osigurali da su deca u sve tri grupe radila istu aktivnost, što nam je olakšalo poređenje izvedbi. Tako male razlike u načinu na koji smo zadavali aktivnosti dovele su do velikih razlika u uspešnosti izvođenja. Anglo-amerikanci su uradili 2 ipo puta više anagrama kada su ih sami birali, u odnosu na to kad su ih birale gđica Smit ili njihove majke. Nije bitno ko je birao, ako je neko drugi zadavao zadatak, njihova izvedba je bila loša. Zapravo, neka deca su bila vidno posramljena kada im je rečeno da su konsultovane njihove majke. (smeh) Jedna devojčica, Meri, rekla je "Pitali ste moju mamu?"
(Laughter)
(smeh)
In contrast, Asian-American children performed best when they believed their mothers had made the choice, second best when they chose for themselves, and least well when it had been chosen by Miss Smith. A girl named Natsumi even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room and tugged on her skirt and asked, "Could you please tell my mommy I did it just like she said?" The first-generation children were strongly influenced by their immigrant parents' approach to choice. For them, choice was not just a way of defining and asserting their individuality, but a way to create community and harmony by deferring to the choices of people whom they trusted and respected. If they had a concept of being true to one's self, then that self, most likely, [was] composed, not of an individual, but of a collective. Success was just as much about pleasing key figures as it was about satisfying one's own preferences. Or, you could say that the individual's preferences were shaped by the preferences of specific others.
Nasuprot tome, Azijsko-američka deca su bila najbolja kada su verovala da su njihove majke odabrale, potom kada su sami birali a najmanje uspešni su bili kada je birala gđica Smit. Jedna devojčica koja se zove Natsumi je prilikom izlaska iz prostorije prišla g-đici Smit povukla je za suknju i pitala, "Hoćete molim vas reći mojoj mami da sam uradila tačno kako je rekla?" Pristup koji roditelji imigranti imaju prema izboru, snažno je uticao na decu prve generacije. Za njih, izbor nije samo način definisanja i zastupanja svoje ličnosti, nego i način da se stvori zajednica i harmonija razlikovanjem od izbora ljudi kojima su verovali i koje su poštovali. Da su znali za koncept "dosledan sebi", onda to "sebi", najverovatnije, nije sastavljeno od individualnog nego od kolektivnog. Uspeh se podjednako odnosi na zadovoljavanje ključnih osoba koliko i na zadovoljavanje ličnih preferencija. Ili, mogli biste reći da su individualne preferencije oblikovane preferencijama određenih drugih.
The assumption then that we do best when the individual self chooses only holds when that self is clearly divided from others. When, in contrast, two or more individuals see their choices and their outcomes as intimately connected, then they may amplify one another's success by turning choosing into a collective act. To insist that they choose independently might actually compromise both their performance and their relationships. Yet that is exactly what the American paradigm demands. It leaves little room for interdependence or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility. It requires that everyone treat choice as a private and self-defining act. People that have grown up in such a paradigm might find it motivating, but it is a mistake to assume that everyone thrives under the pressure of choosing alone.
U tom slučaju pretpostavka da smo najbolji onda kada sami biramo, stoji jedino kada je naša ličnost jasno odvojena od drugih. Nasuprot tome, kada dve ili više osoba vide svoje izbore i njihove ishode kao blisko povezane, onda mogu pojačavati uspeh jedno drugog tako što pretvaraju biranje u kolektivni čin. Insistiranje na nezavisnom biranju može da ugrozi i njihovu izvedbu i njihove veze. Ipak, to je upravo ono što američka paradigma zahteva. Ostavlja malo mesta za međuzavisnost ili potvrdu individualne pogrešivosti. Ona zahteva da svi shvataju izbor kao privatni i samo-definišući čin. Ljudi koji su odrasli sa takvom paradigmom možda misle da je ona motivišuća. Ali greška je smatrati da svi napreduju pod pritiskom samostalnog izbora.
The second assumption which informs the American view of choice goes something like this. The more choices you have, the more likely you are to make the best choice. So bring it on, Walmart, with 100,000 different products, and Amazon, with 27 million books and Match.com with -- what is it? -- 15 million date possibilities now. You will surely find the perfect match. Let's test this assumption by heading over to Eastern Europe. Here, I interviewed people who were residents of formerly communist countries, who had all faced the challenge of transitioning to a more democratic and capitalistic society. One of the most interesting revelations came not from an answer to a question, but from a simple gesture of hospitality. When the participants arrived for their interview, I offered them a set of drinks: Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite -- seven, to be exact.
Druga pretpostavka koja utiče na američki pogled na izbor ide otprilike ovako. Što više izbora imate, verovatnije je da ćete načiniti najbolji izbor. Samo napred "Walmart" sa 100.000 različitih proizvoda, "Amazon" sa 27 miliona knjiga i "Match.com" sa - koliko beše? - 15 miliona potencijalnih partnera. Sigurno ćete pronaći savršenu osobu. Testirajmo ovu pretpostavku u istočnoj Evropi. Tu sam intervjuisala ljude koji su stanovnici bivših komunističkih zemalja, koji su se suočili sa izazovom tranzicije u društvo koje je više demokratsko i kapitalističko. Jedno od najinteresantnijih otkrića nije došlo iz odgovora na neko pitanje, nego iz jednostavnog gesta gostoprimstva. Kada su učesnici stigli na intervju, ponudila sam im asortiman pića, "Koka kolu", dijetalnu kolu, "Sprite" - sedam, da budem precizna.
During the very first session, which was run in Russia, one of the participants made a comment that really caught me off guard. "Oh, but it doesn't matter. It's all just soda. That's just one choice." (Murmuring) I was so struck by this comment that from then on, I started to offer all the participants those seven sodas, and I asked them, "How many choices are these?" Again and again, they perceived these seven different sodas, not as seven choices, but as one choice: soda or no soda. When I put out juice and water in addition to these seven sodas, now they perceived it as only three choices -- juice, water and soda. Compare this to the die-hard devotion of many Americans, not just to a particular flavor of soda, but to a particular brand. You know, research shows repeatedly that we can't actually tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. Of course, you and I know that Coke is the better choice.
Tokom prve sesije, koja se odvijala u Rusiji, jedan od učesnika je rekao nešto što me je uhvatilo potpuno nespremnu. "O, ali nema veze. Sve su to gazirani sokovi. To je samo jedan izbor." (mrmljanje) Taj komentar me je toliko pogodio, da sam od tada svim učesnicima nudila tih sedam gaziranih sokova. I pitala sam ih, "Koliko je to izbora?" Iznova i iznova, oni su percipirali tih sedam različitih sokova ne kao sedam izbora, nego kao jedan izbor: ima gaziranog soka ili nema gaziranog soka. Kada sam pored toga stavila i đus i vodu, oni su to videli kao samo tri mogućnosti - đus, voda i gazirani sok. Uporedite to sa tvrdokornom posvećenošću Amerikanaca, ne samo određenom ukusu gaziranog soka, nego i određenoj marki. Znate, istraživanja iznova pokazuju da zapravo ne možemo da razlikujemo "Koka kolu" i "Pepsi". Naravno, vi i ja znamo da je "Koka kola" bolji izbor.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
For modern Americans who are exposed to more options and more ads associated with options than anyone else in the world, choice is just as much about who they are as it is about what the product is. Combine this with the assumption that more choices are always better, and you have a group of people for whom every little difference matters and so every choice matters. But for Eastern Europeans, the sudden availability of all these consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge. They were flooded with choice before they could protest that they didn't know how to swim. When asked, "What words and images do you associate with choice?" Grzegorz from Warsaw said, "Ah, for me it is fear. There are some dilemmas you see. I am used to no choice." Bohdan from Kiev said, in response to how he felt about the new consumer marketplace, "It is too much. We do not need everything that is there." A sociologist from the Warsaw Survey Agency explained, "The older generation jumped from nothing to choice all around them. They were never given a chance to learn how to react." And Tomasz, a young Polish man said, "I don't need twenty kinds of chewing gum. I don't mean to say that I want no choice, but many of these choices are quite artificial."
Za moderne Amerikance, koji su izloženi mnogo većem broju mogućnosti i oglasa za mogućnosti nego bilo ko u svetu, izbor govori o njima koliko govori i o samom proizvodu. Ukombinujte ovo sa pretpostavkom da je više izbora uvek bolje, i dobijate grupu ljudi kojima je svaka i najmanja razlika bitna tako da je svaki izbor bitan. Ali za ljude iz istočne Evrope, iznenadna dostupnost svih tih proizvoda na tržištu bila je preplavljujuća. Bili su preplavljeni izborom pre nego što su mogli da se pobune da ne znaju da plivaju. Kada je upitan, "Koje reči i slike povezujete sa izborom?" Gregors iz Varšave je rekao, "Ah, za mene je to strah. Vidite, postoje neke dileme. Navikao sam da nemam izbora." Budin iz Kijeva je rekao, kao odgovor na pitanje kako se oseća u vezi sa novim potrošačkim tržištem, "To je previše. Nije nam potrebno sve što tu postoji." Jedan sociolog iz varšavske agencije za istraživanja je objasnio, "Starija generacija je skočila sa ničega na izbore svuda okolo. Nikada im nije data šansa da nauče kako da reaguju." A Tomas, mladi Poljak, rekao je "Nije mi potrebno dvadeset vrsta žvaka. Ne želim da kažem da ne želim izbor, ali mnogi od ovih izbora su veštački."
In reality, many choices are between things that are not that much different. The value of choice depends on our ability to perceive differences between the options. Americans train their whole lives to play "spot the difference." They practice this from such an early age that they've come to believe that everyone must be born with this ability. In fact, though all humans share a basic need and desire for choice, we don't all see choice in the same places or to the same extent. When someone can't see how one choice is unlike another, or when there are too many choices to compare and contrast, the process of choosing can be confusing and frustrating. Instead of making better choices, we become overwhelmed by choice, sometimes even afraid of it. Choice no longer offers opportunities, but imposes constraints. It's not a marker of liberation, but of suffocation by meaningless minutiae. In other words, choice can develop into the very opposite of everything it represents in America when it is thrust upon those who are insufficiently prepared for it. But it is not only other people in other places that are feeling the pressure of ever-increasing choice. Americans themselves are discovering that unlimited choice seems more attractive in theory than in practice.
U stvarnosti, mnogo je izbora između stvari koje i nisu toliko različite. Vrednost izbora zavisi od naše sposobnosti da vidimo razlike između mogućnosti. Amerikanci celog svog života vežbaju igru "uoči razlike". Oni to vežbaju od tako ranog uzrasta da su počeli da veruju da mora da je svako rođen sa ovom sposobnošću. Zapravo, iako svi ljudi dele osnovnu potrebu i želju za izborom, ne vidimo svi izbore na istim mestima ili do iste mere. Kada neko ne vidi kako se jedan izbor razlikuje od drugog, ili kada postoji previše izbora za poređenje i upoređivanje, proces biranja može biti zbunjujuć i frustrirajući. Umesto da činimo bolje izbore, mi postajemo njima preplavljeni a nekad čak i uplašeni. Izbor više ne nudi mogućnosti nego nameće ograničenja. Zbog beznačajnih sitnica postaje obeležje gušenja, a ne slobode. Drugim rečima, izbor može postati direktna suprotnost svega onoga što predstavlja u Americi, kada se nametne onima koji su za njega nedovoljno pripremljeni. Ali nisu samo drugi ljudi u drugim mestima ti koji osećaju pritisak sve većih mogućnosti izbora. I sami Amerikanci otkrivaju da neograničen izbor deluje primamljivije u teoriji nego u praksi.
We all have physical, mental and emotional (Laughter) limitations that make it impossible for us to process every single choice we encounter, even in the grocery store, let alone over the course of our entire lives. A number of my studies have shown that when you give people 10 or more options when they're making a choice, they make poorer decisions, whether it be health care, investment, other critical areas. Yet still, many of us believe that we should make all our own choices and seek out even more of them.
Svi imamo fizička, mentalna i emocionalna ograničenja koja onemogućavaju da obradimo svaki pojedini izbor sa kojim se susrećemo, čak i u piljarnici, a kamoli tokom celog našeg životnog veka. Neka od mojih istraživanja su pokazala da, kada date ljudima 10 ili više mogućnosti za izbor, oni će donositi lošije odluke, bilo da se radi o zdravlju, investicijama, ili drugim bitnim oblastima. Ipak, mnogi od nas veruju da bi trebalo da sami donosimo svoje odluke i da ih tražimo još više.
This brings me to the third, and perhaps most problematic, assumption: "You must never say no to choice." To examine this, let's go back to the U.S. and then hop across the pond to France. Right outside Chicago, a young couple, Susan and Daniel Mitchell, were about to have their first baby. They'd already picked out a name for her, Barbara, after her grandmother. One night, when Susan was seven months pregnant, she started to experience contractions and was rushed to the emergency room. The baby was delivered through a C-section, but Barbara suffered cerebral anoxia, a loss of oxygen to the brain. Unable to breathe on her own, she was put on a ventilator. Two days later, the doctors gave the Mitchells a choice: They could either remove Barbara off the life support, in which case she would die within a matter of hours, or they could keep her on life support, in which case she might still die within a matter of days. If she survived, she would remain in a permanent vegetative state, never able to walk, talk or interact with others. What do they do? What do any parent do?
Ovo me dovodi do treće, i možda najproblematičnije pretpostavke: "Nikada ne smete reći ne izboru". Da bismo ispitali ovo, vratimo se u SAD i onda preskočimo preko bare u Francusku. Nadomak Čikaga, mladi par, Suzan i Danijel Mičel je trebalo da dobiju svoju prvu bebu. Već su odabrali ime, Barbara, po baki. Jedne noći, kad je Suzan bila u sedmom mesecu trudnoće, počela je da oseća kontrakcije i odveli su je u hitnu. Beba je na svet došla carskim rezom, ali Barbara je obolela od cerebralne anoksije, gubitka kiseonika u mozgu. U nemogućnosti da sama diše, stavljena je na aparat. Dva dana kasnije, doktori su Mičelovima ponudili izbor. Ili da skinu Barbaru sa aparata, u kom slučaju bi umrla u roku od nekoliko sati, ili da je održavaju na aparatima, u kom slučaju bi možda umrla u roku od nekoliko dana. Ako preživi, ostala bi u stalnom vegetativnom stanju, nikada ne bi hodala, govorila ili stupala u vezu s ljudima. Šta su oni učinili? Šta bi bilo koji roditelj učinio?
In a study I conducted with Simona Botti and Kristina Orfali, American and French parents were interviewed. They had all suffered the same tragedy. In all cases, the life support was removed, and the infants had died. But there was a big difference. In France, the doctors decided whether and when the life support would be removed, while in the United States, the final decision rested with the parents. We wondered: does this have an effect on how the parents cope with the loss of their loved one? We found that it did. Even up to a year later, American parents were more likely to express negative emotions, as compared to their French counterparts. French parents were more likely to say things like, "Noah was here for so little time, but he taught us so much. He gave us a new perspective on life."
U jednoj studiji koju sam vodila sa Simonom Boti i Kristinom Orfali, intervjuisani su američki i francuski roditelji. Svi su doživeli istu tu tragediju. U svim slučajevima su aparati ugašeni i bebe su umrle. Ali postojala je velika razlika. U Francuskoj, doktori su odlučivali da li i kada će se isključiti aparati, dok su u Sjedinjenim Državama poslednju odluku donosili roditelji. Pitali smo se: da li ovo ima veze s tim kako roditelji izlaze na kraj sa gubitkom voljenog deteta? Otkrili smo da ima. Čak i do godinu dana kasnije, američki roditelji su bili skloniji da izražavaju negativna osećanja u poređenju sa francuskim roditeljima. Francuski roditelji su govorili stvari kao, "Noa je bio tu tako kratko, ali nas je naučio tako mnogo. Dao nam je novi pogled na život."
American parents were more likely to say things like, "What if? What if?" Another parent complained, "I feel as if they purposefully tortured me. How did they get me to do that?" And another parent said, "I feel as if I've played a role in an execution." But when the American parents were asked if they would rather have had the doctors make the decision, they all said, "No." They could not imagine turning that choice over to another, even though having made that choice made them feel trapped, guilty, angry. In a number of cases they were even clinically depressed. These parents could not contemplate giving up the choice, because to do so would have gone contrary to everything they had been taught and everything they had come to believe about the power and purpose of choice.
Američki roditelji su govorili stvari kao, "Šta bi bilo? Šta bi bilo?" Jedan roditelj se žalio, "Osećam da su me namerno mučili. Kako su me naveli da to uradim?" A jedan drugi je rekao, "Osećam kao da sam imao ulogu u pogubljenju." Ali kada smo upitali američke roditelje da li bi radije da su doktori doneli odluku, svi su rekli, "Ne." Nisu mogli da zamisle da taj izbor predaju nekom drugom, iako su se zbog te odluke osećali kao u zamci, krivi, ljuti. U nemalom broju slučajeva čak su bili klinički depresivni. Ovi roditelji nisu mogli da zamisle da se odreknu tog izbora, jer bi to bilo u suprotnosti sa svime što su naučili i svime u šta veruju o moći i svrsi izbora.
In her essay, "The White Album," Joan Didion writes, "We tell ourselves stories in order to live. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the idea with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria, which is our actual experience." The story Americans tell, the story upon which the American dream depends, is the story of limitless choice. This narrative promises so much: freedom, happiness, success. It lays the world at your feet and says, "You can have anything, everything." It's a great story, and it's understandable why they would be reluctant to revise it. But when you take a close look, you start to see the holes, and you start to see that the story can be told in many other ways.
U svom eseju, "Beli album", Džoan Didion piše, "Pričamo sebi priče da bismo živeli. Interpretiramo ono što vidimo, od mnogih mogućnosti biramo najbolju. U potpunosti živimo od nametanja narativa različitim slikama, od ideje kojom učimo da zamrznemo promenljivu fantazmagoriju koja je naše stvarno iskustvo." Priča koju Amerikanci pričaju, priča od koje zavisi američki san, je priča o bezgraničnim izborima. Narativ toliko mnogo obećava: slobodu, sreću, uspeh. Prostire svet pred vašim stopama i kaže, "Možeš imati bilo šta, sve." To je super priča, i razumljivo je zašto su ljudi nevoljni da je preispitaju. Ali kada bolje pogledate, počinjete da vidite rupe, i počinjete da uviđate da ta priča može da se ispriča na mnogo drugih načina.
Americans have so often tried to disseminate their ideas of choice, believing that they will be, or ought to be, welcomed with open hearts and minds. But the history books and the daily news tell us it doesn't always work out that way. The phantasmagoria, the actual experience that we try to understand and organize through narrative, varies from place to place. No single narrative serves the needs of everyone everywhere. Moreover, Americans themselves could benefit from incorporating new perspectives into their own narrative, which has been driving their choices for so long.
Amerikanci tako često pokušavaju da rašire svoju ideju izbora, verujući da će biti i da treba da budu prihvaćeni otvorenih srca i umova. Ali istorijske knjige i dnevne vesti pokazuju nam da nije uvek tako. Ta fantazmagorija, konkretno iskustvo koje pokušavamo da razumemo i organizujemo kroz narativ, varira od mesta do mesta. Nijedan narativ ne zadovoljava potrebe svih i svuda. Štaviše, i samim Amerikancima bi koristilo da usvoje nove perspektive u svoj narativ koji već dugo upravlja njihovim izborima.
Robert Frost once said that, "It is poetry that is lost in translation." This suggests that whatever is beautiful and moving, whatever gives us a new way to see, cannot be communicated to those who speak a different language. But Joseph Brodsky said that, "It is poetry that is gained in translation," suggesting that translation can be a creative, transformative act. When it comes to choice, we have far more to gain than to lose by engaging in the many translations of the narratives. Instead of replacing one story with another, we can learn from and revel in the many versions that exist and the many that have yet to be written. No matter where we're from and what your narrative is, we all have a responsibility to open ourselves up to a wider array of what choice can do, and what it can represent. And this does not lead to a paralyzing moral relativism. Rather, it teaches us when and how to act. It brings us that much closer to realizing the full potential of choice, to inspiring the hope and achieving the freedom that choice promises but doesn't always deliver. If we learn to speak to one another, albeit through translation, then we can begin to see choice in all its strangeness, complexity and compelling beauty.
Robert Frost je jednom rekao da, "Poezija se gubi u prevodu". Ovo govori da sve što je lepo i dirljivo, sve što nam daje novi način gledanja, ne može da se rečima prenese onima koji govore neki drugi jezik. Ali Džozef Brodsky je rekao da, "Je poezija ta koja se prevodom dobija", sugerišući da prevod može biti kreativni čin transformacije. Kada se radi o izborima, mnogo više možemo dobiti nego izgubiti uključivanjem u mnoge prevode narativa. Umesto da jednu priču zamenimo drugom, možemo da naučimo i uživamo iz mnogih postojećih verzija i mnogih koje će tek biti napisane. Nebitno odakle smo i kakav nam je narativ, svi imamo odgovornost da se otvorimo širini onoga što izbor može biti i šta može predstavljati. I to ne vodi parališućem moralnom relativizmu. Umesto toga, uči nas kada i kako da delamo. Dovodi nas toliko bliže shvatanju punog potencijala izbora, inspirisanju nade i dostizanju slobode koje izbori obećavaju ali ne ispunjavaju uvek. Ako naučimo da razgovaramo, čak i sa prevodom, onda možemo videti izbor u svoj svojoj neobičnosti, složenosti, i neodoljivoj lepoti.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(aplauz)
Bruno Giussani: Thank you. Sheena, there is a detail about your biography that we have not written in the program book. But by now it's evident to everyone in this room. You're blind. And I guess one of the questions on everybody's mind is: How does that influence your study of choosing because that's an activity that for most people is associated with visual inputs like aesthetics and color and so on?
Bruno Đuzani: Hvala. Šina, postoji jedan detalj u Vašoj biografiji koji nismo napisali u programu. Do sada je to očigledno svima u prostoriji. Vi ste slepi. I pretpostavljam da je jedno od pitanja koje je svima na pameti: Kako to utiče na Vaša istraživanja izbora, jer to je aktivnost koja, za mnoge, ima veze sa vizuelnim stimulusima, kao estetika i boja i slično?
Sheena Iyengar: Well, it's funny that you should ask that because one of the things that's interesting about being blind is you actually get a different vantage point when you observe the way sighted people make choices. And as you just mentioned, there's lots of choices out there that are very visual these days. Yeah, I -- as you would expect -- get pretty frustrated by choices like what nail polish to put on because I have to rely on what other people suggest. And I can't decide. And so one time I was in a beauty salon, and I was trying to decide between two very light shades of pink. And one was called "Ballet Slippers." And the other one was called "Adorable." (Laughter) And so I asked these two ladies, and the one lady told me, "Well, you should definitely wear 'Ballet Slippers.'" "Well, what does it look like?" "Well, it's a very elegant shade of pink." "Okay, great." The other lady tells me to wear "Adorable." "What does it look like?" "It's a glamorous shade of pink." And so I asked them, "Well, how do I tell them apart? What's different about them?" And they said, "Well, one is elegant, the other one's glamorous." Okay, we got that. And the only thing they had consensus on: well, if I could see them, I would clearly be able to tell them apart.
Šina Ijengar: Pa, interesantno da pitate to, jer jedna od interesatnih stvari u vezi s tim što sam slepa je što zapravo imate prednost kada posmatrate kako ljudi sa čulom vida posmatraju izbor. I kao što se spomenuli, mnogi izbori ovih dana su veoma vizuelni. Da, ja - kao što možete očekivati - se prilično isfrustriram izborom na primer laka za nokte jer moram da se oslonim da ono što drugi predlažu. I ne mogu da odlučim. Tako sam jednom bila u salonu lepote i pokušavala da se odlučim između dve veoma svetle nijanse roze. Jedna se zvala "Baletske patike". A druga se zvala "Neodoljiva". (smeh) Pitala sam neke dve dame. Jedna mi je rekla, "Svakako morate uzeti 'Baletske patike'". "Pa, kako izgleda ta boja?" "Pa, to je veoma elegantna nijansa roze." "Okej, super." Druga žena mi kaže da uzmem "Neodoljivu". "Kakva je ta boja?" "To je glamurozna nijansa roze." Pitala sam ih, "Pa, kako da ih razlikujem? Po čemu se razlikuju?" Rekle su, "Pa, jedna je elegantna, druga je glamurozna." Okej, to znamo. Jedina stvar oko koje su se složile: pa, da mogu da ih vidim, sigurno bih mogla i da ih razlikujem.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
And what I wondered was whether they were being affected by the name or the content of the color, so I decided to do a little experiment. So I brought these two bottles of nail polish into the laboratory, and I stripped the labels off. And I brought women into the laboratory, and I asked them, "Which one would you pick?" 50 percent of the women accused me of playing a trick, of putting the same color nail polish in both those bottles. (Laughter) (Applause) At which point you start to wonder who the trick's really played on. Now, of the women that could tell them apart, when the labels were off, they picked "Adorable," and when the labels were on, they picked "Ballet Slippers." So as far as I can tell, a rose by any other name probably does look different and maybe even smells different.
Zanimalo me je da li su pod uticajem naziva ili sadržaja boje. Tako sam se odlučila na jedan eksperiment. Donela sam te dve bočice laka u laboratoriju i skinula nalepnice. Dovela sam žene u laboratoriju i pitala ih, "Koju biste odabrali?" 50% žena me je optužilo za varanje, da sam stavila istu boju laka za nokte u obe te bočice. (smeh) (aplauz) U tom trenutku se zapitate ko tu koga zeza. One žene koje su mogle da ih razlikuju, kada su nalepnice skinute, birale su "Neodoljivu", a kada nalepnice nisu skidane, birale su "Baletske patike". Dakle, koliko ja vidim, ruža pod drugim imenom verovatno izgleda drugačije a možda čak i miriše drugačije.
BG: Thank you. Sheena Iyengar. Thank you Sheena.
BĐ: Hvala vam. Šina Ajengar. Hvala Vam Šina.
(Applause)
(aplauz)