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.
今天,我要帶著各位 在這18分鐘裡環遊世界。 我研究的基準是在美國。 不過先讓我們從地圖的另一端, 日本京都開始。 當時我住在京都某個日本家庭裡, 為了完成我的學位論文, 這是15年前的事了。 當時我早有心理準備, 覺得我一定會遇到文化的差異與誤解, 但沒想到我遇到的情況完全超乎我的想像。
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.
在我剛到的第一天, 去了一家餐廳, 然後我點了一杯綠茶加糖。 過一陣子,服務生過來跟我說 "沒有人會在綠茶裡放糖的。" "我知道"我回答:"我知道日本人不加糖" "但我真的想要一杯甜甜的茶"。 他表現了一個更客氣的態度 並給了同一套說詞: "真的沒有人會放糖 在綠茶裡面" "我也真的知道"我回答: "日本人不會在綠茶裡面放糖" "但是我真的好想" "在綠茶裡面放糖" (笑) 對於我的堅持服務生非常驚訝, 於是他把這個情形告訴了店經理。 過沒多久, 他們開始進行一段長時間的討論, 最後店經理走過來跟我說: "真的非常抱歉,我們店內沒有糖" (笑) 恩,既然我沒辦法喝到我想要的茶, 我另外點了杯咖啡, 這次服務生很快的端上來了。 在咖啡的茶托上, 穩穩躺著2包糖。
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.
我沒辦法為自己點到一杯 加糖綠茶 並不只是因為誤解而已。 這是因為在"選擇"的概念上, 我們有著最根本性的差異。 從我美國人的觀點來看, 當一位付費的顧客根據她的偏好 提出合理的要求, 她就有權利讓自己的要求得到滿足。 這種美式作風,可以引用漢堡王的標語來表示 "吃出你自己的方式", 因為,星巴克說過 "快樂是自己選的"。 (笑) 但是從日本人的觀點來看, 他們的職責,就是要保護那些不知道什麼是最棒的人。 (笑) 剛剛的案例中,這個無知的外國人--- 就做了一個錯誤的選擇。 老實說,按照日本文化標準, 我喝茶的方式是不恰當的, 而他們盡力想要幫助我不要丟臉。
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.
但美國人傾向認為 自己所做的都是最棒的, 並致力於去實踐。 美國人認為透過美國看待事物的觀點, 讓人類所選出的事物, 最能滿足先天和普遍的需求。 不過很不幸的, 這些想法是建立在某個假設上, 這種假設在其他的國家、其他的文化 是不成立的。 有時候在美國 也不一定成立。 我想要來談談這些假設, 還有它們所伴隨來的問題。 在我說明之時,我希望各位可以開始去思考, 那些在你腦中的那些假設, 還有這些假設是如何塑造你的各項經歷。
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.
第一種假設情形: 若有一項選擇與自己息息相關, 那這項選擇應該要自己來做。 這是唯一能讓 你的偏好和興趣 得到最大的滿足。 這是成功的關鍵。 在美國,做選擇的基準點, 就是以個人為出發點。 人們必須為自己做選擇,並堅持自己的原則, 不管外界的任何聲浪。 這稱為"作真實的自己"。 但是,是否要完全從自身利益為出發點 來做選擇呢? 馬克-里柏與我做了一系列的研究, 目的就是去探討這問題的答案。 其中一項研究, 我們在舊金山的日本城執行, 我們將7到9歲的英裔美國籍,和亞裔美國籍的兒童 帶到實驗室裡, 然後將他們各別分成3組。
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.
第一組先進到實驗室裡, 實驗室的史密斯小姐接待他們, 並出了6大主題的字謎。 這些孩子能自由選擇想做的題目。 同時他們能自由選擇 要用哪一種馬克筆作答。 第二組進到實驗室, 他們被帶進同樣的房間裡,出同樣的題目, 但此時史密斯小姐告訴他們, 你想做哪一題 那就得用指定的馬克筆。 接著第三組進來了, 他們被告知該做的字謎、作答用的馬克筆顏色, 他們的媽咪都決定好了。 (笑) 事實上, 被告知該如何做的孩子, 不論是史密斯小姐或是媽咪告知的, 他們被告知的內容, 都是能自由選擇的第一組 所做的選擇結果。
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?"
在這流程下,我們也確定說 三個組中的孩子 若都有做出同樣的行為, 我們也能容易的比較出績效。 我們的管理行為稍有不同 就能引起 行為的大不同。 英裔美國籍的孩子, 能自由選擇的人 相較於 被史密斯小姐和媽咪指定的人, 自由選擇的多做了2.5倍的字謎。 不論是誰下決定, 如果任務已經被別人所控制指引, 他們的績效就會受損。 事實上,有些孩子被告知自己得照媽咪的意思做, 明顯的會覺得丟臉。 (笑) 一位叫瑪麗的孩子說: "你真的問了我媽咪?"
(Laughter)
(笑)
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.
相較之下, 亞裔美國藉的孩子, 在被告知他們媽咪已經說該怎麼做的時候, 績效是最好的, 第2佳的是他們為自己選的, 最後一名是史密斯小姐告訴他們的。 一位叫夏實的小女孩 在史密斯小姐要離開房間時 走近她並拉住她的裙子問說: "你能不能跟我媽咪講說 我有照她的話乖乖做了?" 這些第一代的孩子(first-generation,指父母都為移民的孩子) 非常容易被移民父母 所影響。 對這些孩子而言, 選擇並非只是 展現自我的途徑, 而是建立社群與使人相處融洽的過程, 並根據他們所信任和尊敬的人所做的決定 而有所差異。 一旦他們心裡有這種觀念, 那他們在"自我"的本質上, 大部分就不是以個人為出發點, 而是以合作為出發點。 要獲得成就得滿足一些關鍵條件, 像是滿足 某些人的偏好。 或者,你可以這樣認為, 這些個體心裡偏好的形成, 是仰賴一些特定個體的偏好。
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.
我們做了一個最好的假設,就是 當個體在為自己做選擇時, 只取決 自己是不是 會和其他人清楚的區分開來。 相對的, 當有2個或更多的個體, 發現他們的選擇和成果 彼此密切相關, 透過將個人選擇 轉化成為集體行動的情形下, 他們會放大彼此的成就。 要他們堅持自己的自主選擇, 就會造成 他們在自己的績效和關係上 做一個妥協。 這恰恰就是 美國人最需要的典範行為。 這留給所謂獨立的觀念一些轉圜的空間 或是說,他們認知到個人是不可靠的。 這讓每個人在對"選擇"這件事情上 成為一種私人的和自我界定的行為。 人們會依據某個典範成長, 並受到其典範的刺激。 第一項假設的錯誤點在於 假設每個人的成功茁壯 都是來自獨自下決定的壓力。
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.
而美國人對選擇的觀點 的第二項假設,就是 你擁有的選擇越多, 就越有可能 做出正確的選擇。 所以沃爾瑪超市裡面有10萬種不同的商品, 亞馬遜電子書城有2700萬本書, 真愛天空交友網站有什麼? 現在可能有1500萬筆的交友資料。 你一定可以在上面找到真愛。 讓我們在東歐 針對這個假設對點實驗。 在東歐,我與一些人面談, 這些人過去是共產國家的居民, 曾經面對 民主和資本主義社會 所帶來的過渡期。 其中最有趣的啟示不是來自 我們面談中的問與答, 而是來自一個款待客人的簡單行為。 當參與者來到面談地點後, 我會遞上一杯飲料, 可樂,無糖可樂,雪碧..等等 為了周到我準備了7種飲料。
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.
實驗的第一階段, 是在俄羅斯進行, 其中一個參與者所講的一句話, 真的讓我大吃一驚。 他說:”喔,沒差啦, 這些都是蘇打水,對我來說只有一種選擇”。 (細語) 我對這句話非常震驚, 然後我開始提供所有的參與者 這7種飲料。 然後我都會問:”請問這裡有幾種選擇?” 這樣問了一次又一次, 他們都認為這7種不同的氣泡飲料, 對他們而言不是7種選擇,是1種: 蘇打飲料,或非蘇打飲料。 如果我在這7種飲料中, 額外再加上果汁和水, 那他們就會認為現在有3種選擇了-- 果汁、水、蘇打水。 讓頑固死硬的美國人來分辨, 這些飲料可不僅僅只是口味各異的蘇打水, 品牌也完全不同。 反覆研究的結果顯示, 對於可口可樂和百事可樂之間, 事實上我們也沒辦法分辨它們的差異。 當然,對你我而言, 可口可樂是第一選擇。
(Laughter)
(笑)
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."
現代的美國人擁有的選項, 還有廣告所帶來的選項, 比世界上其他任何角落都要多, 選擇是為了表達出個性, 廣告是為了分辨產品的不同。 將這點和第二項假設做合併,也就是越多的選擇是比較好的, 所以你能找到一群人,這些人能針對事物之間的細微差距, 劃分出許多不同的選擇。 但是對東歐人而言, 意外的得到這些 像洪水般氾濫的市場消費品。 在他們還不會游泳之前, 就被大量的選擇所淹沒了。 當詢問他們:"你對選擇 有什麼看法?" 來自華沙的格雷戈爾說: ”哇,對我來說這讓人害怕, 我不知道該怎麼選, 我習慣了沒有選擇的日子。" 來自基輔的布丹, 他針對新的消費性市場 作出回應: "東西實在太多了, 在這裡我們不需要這麼多東西。" 一位來自 華沙研究機構的社會學家解釋: "這裡上一世代的人 是從無法選擇的世界跳出來的。 他們一直沒有 學習如何去對外界做反應。" 一位年輕的波蘭年輕人,湯瑪士說: "我不需要20種的口香糖。 我並不是說我不需要選擇, 但這些選擇中,有太多是刻意製造出來的。"
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.
事實上,有許多事物的選擇之間, 並沒有太大不同。 選擇的價值, 是建立在 我們能否在不同選項之間 分辨出差異的能力上。 美國人訓練自己的生活 像是在玩”大家來找碴”的遊戲。 美國人從小就開始練習做"選擇", 因此讓他們相信 每個人出生後就擁有此能力。 事實上,雖然所有的人類 在"選擇"上都有基本的需要和欲求, 但是我們看待選擇的角度是不同的, 程度也是不同的。 當有人沒辦法分辨出 一個選擇和另一個選擇有何不同, 或是無法從許多的選擇中做出比較, 那麼做選擇的過程會是 令人困惑而且感到挫折的。 若沒辦法做出最佳選擇, 我們就會被選擇這件事情所壓垮, 甚至會害怕做選擇。 選擇不再是提供更多機會的管道, 反而是增加限制。 馬克筆沒辦法自由地使用, 反而被一些無意義的小事 所限制。 換句話說, 如果把做選擇這件事情 強塞那些沒準備自己做選擇的人, 那美國人對選擇的詮釋, 對這些人而言 就會完全相反。 還有那些 住在其他地方 對於面對越來越多的選擇 就會感受到壓力的人。 美國人自己發現 擁有無限的選擇 理論上的吸引力會比 實際上高。
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.
我們在生理、心理、 和情緒都有所侷限, 這讓我們 有能力去處理所遇到的每一個選擇, 在雜貨店裡可以, 更不用說是整個人生了。 我的研究結果有一個數字, 當給予人們10個以上的選項時, 他們會做出最差的選擇, 不論選擇的主題是衛生保健,投資, 或是其他重大的領域。 但我們之中仍舊有許多人相信 我們必須靠自己做選擇 並尋找更多可能的選項。
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?
這帶給我想到第三個假設 而這也許是問題最大的假設: ”永遠不要對 選擇說不"。 為了去證實這假設是否存在,讓我們先回到美國, 然後再跨越大西洋到法國看看。 靠右側的芝加哥, 有一對年輕的夫妻,蘇珊和丹尼爾-米切爾, 他們即將擁有第一個孩子。 他們已經為她取好名字, 芭芭拉,跟她的祖母同名。 在蘇珊已經懷胎7個月的某天晚上, 她感受到子宮在激烈收縮(註:早產) 然後被緊急的送往急診室。 孩子用剖腹的方式生產下來, 但芭芭拉卻出現了缺氧狀態, 她的腦部缺氧。 這使她沒辦法自行呼吸, 要使用呼吸器輔助。 2天後, 醫生給米切爾夫婦 一個選擇。 他們可以將生命維持裝備 從芭芭拉身上移開, 這情況下她會在幾個小時內就死去, 或者,選擇繼續使用生命維持裝備, 這情況下她還是有可能 在幾天後死去, 但若她能生存下來, 也將永遠呈現植物人的狀態, 永遠不會走、不會說、 無法與人互動。 他們怎麼選? 這種情況下身為父母會怎麼做?
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."
這項研究,我與二位學者合作, 西蒙娜-博蒂和克里斯蒂娜-歐發莉, 分別與美國地區、法國地區 的父母會談。 這些父母都承受了 同樣的悲劇。 在所有訪談的案例中,都選擇移除生命維持裝置, 新生兒也都因此死去了。 但這其中最不一樣的是, 在法國,生命維持裝置該不該移除、何時移除 是由醫生來決定, 在美國, 是由父母來做最後的決定。 我們好奇: 身為父母,面對即將失去摯愛的時候, 他們是否會下這樣的決定? 我們發現,他們還是會自己做決定。 即使時間過了1年, 美國籍的父母 相較於法國籍的父母 所感受的負面情緒比較高。 法國籍父母大多會這樣想: "雖然諾哈在世上的時間很短, 但是他教了我們許多事情。 他讓我們對生命有了新的體悟"。
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.
美國籍的父母大多是這麼想: "若那時這樣會怎樣?若那樣又會怎樣?" 其中一位家長還抱怨: "我覺得這像是刻意要折磨我一樣, 他們怎麼會讓我做這種事情?" 另一位家長這麼說: "我覺得自己在扮演 一個劊子手"。 但是當詢問這些美國籍父母 若不用給你們做決定 而是給醫生來做的話怎麼樣, 他們的答案都是"不要"。 他們沒辦法想像 將這個選擇機會讓給別人, 即使他們知道做這個決定 會讓他們受盡煎熬、 罪惡感、憤怒。 在這些案例中, 甚至有人出現了重度憂鬱症。 但這些父母沒辦法 放棄這個選擇的機會, 因為如果這麼做的話, 就會跟以前被教導的原則相互違背, 還有那些 他們所認同的 選擇的意義與權力。
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.
在作家瓊.蒂蒂安(註:Joan Didion) 的"白色相簿"這本書中,有一段評論:(註:The White Album) "為了生存, 我們會編造一段故事給自己。 我們會盡力詮釋自己的所見, 從眾多的選項中 挑出最可行的來做。 我們的生活是用各式各樣的圖片 然後用拼板印刷 所呈現的線性故事。 這種概念,讓我們 將跟風一樣千變萬化的生活體驗, 變成像結凍般的死硬"。 這是美國人的故事, 這建立在 美國夢之上的故事, 充斥著無止盡的選擇。 這則美國夢的故事 充斥著以下的東西: 自由,快樂, 成就。 這故事是把世界踩在自己的腳下,並疾呼: '你可以擁有一切,所有的一切"。 這本書的故事內容很棒, 也能讓人理解為什麼美國人不願意 修正個種觀念。 但仔細點看, 你會發現這樣是有缺陷的, 你會開始注意到這則故事, 是可以用很多方式去詮釋的。
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.
美國人都試著 去傳播自己對於選擇的觀念, 並相信他人都要,或說是必須要 用開放的心胸去接受這種觀念。 但是歷史記錄和每日的新聞, 都說明了這套並不是這樣順利運作的。 說故事的手法 是隨地方而千變萬化的, 我們都試著用說故事的方法, 去了解並組織自己真實的經驗。 任何地區的任何人, 都不會只滿足於一種說故事的手法。 而且,美國人自己 也能因為吸收他人的敘事技巧 而有所受益, 而這套敘事技巧已經驅使他們的選擇 好一段時間。
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.
羅伯-弗斯特曾說:(註:美國詩人) "詩,就是在翻譯過程中失去的東西"。 這句話是說, 不論是什麼有多麼美麗,多麼動人, 不論是什麼讓我們有了新的體悟, 都沒有辦法 將這種感覺用不同語言表達出來。 但約瑟夫-布羅斯基卻說:(註:蘇聯詩人) "所謂的詩, 就是從翻譯過程中得到的"。 這句話是說 翻譯過程能產生想像力, 轉化成動力。 在翻譯過程中要面臨抉擇時, 透過許多不同的翻譯敘事手法, 我們從詩中得到的感觸 會比失去的還要多。 這並不是 要用另一個故事來取代, 我們可以從翻譯過程中學習到新事物, 並陶醉在不同的翻譯版本中, 甚至陶醉在非原詩的意境裡。 不論我們從哪裡來, 也不論我們敘事的手法為何, 我們都有責任 打開心房,更廣泛的去接納 各種選擇, 還有這些選擇代表的意義。 這樣才不會讓 "道德相對主義"停擺(註:某些道德價值只適用於特定文化範圍內) 相反的,這會教導我們 何時且如何行動。 讓我們 更能了解各種選擇所隱藏的含意, 更接近能鼓舞人心的的希望 同時達到 總是無法分享出去的 自由選擇的承諾。 若我們與人交談, 即使要靠翻譯才能順利溝通, 我們就能發現, "選擇"它的不可思議之處, 複雜處, 和它迷人的美麗之處。
Thank you.
謝謝各位。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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?
布魯諾-吉桑尼:謝謝妳。 希娜,目前還沒有任何關於妳的書籍, 但是我們已經聽過你的許多事蹟, 不過在這個小房間裡最明顯的是,妳是個盲人。 我想現場所有人心理一定都有一個疑問: 是什麼讓妳想去做"選擇"的研究? 因為做選擇時 大多數人都會仰賴視覺, 像是審美觀,顏色等等諸如此類。
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.
希娜-艾因嘉:嗯,你問的問題很有趣, 有趣的點在於,若看不見事物, 就能讓你站在一個很不一樣的有利位置, 並好好觀察 一般常人在做選擇的現象。 就你剛剛提到的,日常生活中 我們都很依賴視覺來做選擇。 是呀,對我來說,或是各位可以想像-- 我對某些選擇會感到挫折, 像是該上什麼顏色的指甲油, 這件事情我真的要倚賴別人的意見。 我沒辦法自己下決定。 有次我到髮廊去, 我必須在二款淡粉紅色之間的指甲油做出選擇。 一款的顏色是"粉芭蕾"(註:Ballet Slippers) 另一款是"粉可愛"(註:Adorable) (笑) 所以我問了2位小姐, 其中一位告訴我:"嗯,你一定要試試看『粉芭蕾』" "它看起來是怎樣的顏色?" "嗯,這是非常優雅的淺粉色"。 "喔喔,感覺不錯" 而另一位小姐告訴我要用"粉可愛"。 "那它看起來是怎樣的顏色?" "它看起來是較嫵媚的淺粉色" 然後我問她們:"那我該怎麼區分它們?" "這2者有什麼差別?" 她們回答:"喔,一個比較優雅,一個比較嫵媚" 好吧,我懂了。 我想她們心裡唯一的共識就是: 嗯,如果我看的見, 我就能清楚的分辨這2種顏色。
(Laughter)
(笑)
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.
而我猜想,她們有被 這二款顏色的名稱所影響了。 所以我決定做一個小小的實驗。 我將這二罐指甲油帶回實驗室, 撕掉標籤, 然後帶幾個女性到實驗室裡, 一個一個問:"妳會選哪一個?" 有50%的女實驗者認為我在耍人, 她們覺得 這2罐指甲油是一模一樣的。 (笑) (掌聲) 這時候你就會猜想究竟是誰在耍把戲了。 而在撕掉標籤的情況下, 那些能分辨的女性會選擇"粉可愛", 若把標籤貼回去, 這些女性會選"粉芭蕾"。 因此,據我所知, 一款玫瑰只要有不同名字, 就能讓它的外觀看起來與其他款不同 甚至聞起來也會不同。
BG: Thank you. Sheena Iyengar. Thank you Sheena.
謝謝妳,希娜-艾因嘉,非常謝謝妳。
(Applause)
(掌聲)