你真的知道你为什么要做的事情吗？

Do you really know why you do what you do?

演讲者：Petter Johansson

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?

那你为什么这么认为 富人应该多交税吗？ 你为什么买最新的iPhone？ 你为什么选择你现在的伴侣？ 为什么这么多人 投票给唐纳德·特朗普？ 原因是什么，他们为什么要这样做？

 

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.

所以我们问这种 问题一直存在，我们希望得到答案。 当被问到时， 我们希望自己知道答案，简单地告诉我们为什么这样做。 但我们真的知道为什么吗？ 所以当你说你更喜欢 乔治克鲁尼到汤姆汉克斯，由于他对环境的关注，这是真的吗？ 所以你可以完全真诚 并真诚地相信这就是原因 这推动了你的选择，但对我来说，它可能仍然感觉 好像少了点什么。 就目前而言，由于 主观性的本质，其实很难证明 人们错了自己。

 

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.

所以我是一个实验心理学家，这就是问题所在 我们一直在实验室中尝试解决。 所以我们想创建一个实验，让我们能够挑战。 人们对自己的评价，无论他们看起来多么确定。 但是欺骗别人 关于自己的思想很难。 所以我们求助于专业人士。 魔术师。 所以他们是创造的专家 自由选择的幻觉。 所以当他们说，“选择一张卡，任何一张卡”时，你唯一知道的就是。 是你的选择不再自由。 所以我们有一些很棒的 与一群瑞典魔术师进行头脑风暴会议，他们帮助我们创造了一种能够操纵的方法 人们选择的结果。 这样我们就会知道 当人们对自己有错时，即使他们自己也不知道这一点。 所以我现在告诉你 一部展示这种操纵的短片。 所以这很简单。 参与者做出了选择，但我最终给了他们相反的结果。 然后我们想看看： 他们有什么反应，他们说了什么？ 所以这很简单，但是看 如果你能发现魔术正在发生。 这是与真实的参与者一起拍摄的， 他们不知道发生了什么。

 

(Video) Petter Johansson: Hi, my name's Petter.

（视频）彼得·约翰逊： 嗨，我叫彼得。

 

Woman: Hi, I'm Becka.

女人：嗨，我是贝卡。

 

PJ: I'm going to show you pictures like this. And you'll have to decide which one you find more attractive.

PJ：我要给你看 像这样的图片。 你必须决定 你觉得哪一个更有吸引力。

 

Becka: OK.

贝卡：好的。

 

PJ: And then sometimes, I will ask you why you prefer that face.

PJ：有时候， 我会问你为什么喜欢那张脸。

 

Becka: OK.

贝卡：好的。

 

PJ: Ready? Becka: Yeah.

PJ：准备好了吗？ 贝卡：是的。

 

PJ: Why did you prefer that one?

PJ：你为什么喜欢那个？

 

Becka: The smile, I think.

贝卡：我想是微笑。

 

PJ: Smile.

PJ：微笑。

 

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.

男子：左边一个。 再一次，这个刚刚打动了我。 有趣的镜头。 因为我是摄影师， 我喜欢它的照明和外观。

 

Petter Johansson: But now comes the trick.

彼得·约翰逊：但现在诀窍来了。

 

(Video) Woman 1: This one.

（视频）女人1：这个。

 

PJ: So they get the opposite of their choice. And let's see what happens.

PJ：所以他们得到了相反的结果 他们的选择。 让我们看看会发生什么。

 

Woman 2: Um ... I think he seems a little more innocent than the other guy.

女人2：嗯... 我觉得他似乎多了一点 比另一个人无辜。

 

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.

男子：左边的那个。 我喜欢她的笑容 以及鼻子和脸部的轮廓。 所以更有趣一点 对我来说，还有她的发型。

 

Woman 3: This one. I like the smirky look better.

女人3：这个。 我更喜欢傻笑的样子。

 

PJ: You like the smirky look better?

PJ：你更喜欢傻笑的样子吗？

 

Woman 3: This one.

PJ：你更喜欢傻笑的样子吗？

 

PJ: What made you choose him?

PJ：是什么让你选择了他？

 

Woman 3: I don't know, he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.

女人3：我不知道， 他看起来有点像霍比特人。

 

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：当我告诉他们真实的本质时，最后会发生什么 的实验？ 是的，就是这样。我只需要 问几个问题。

 

Man: Sure.

男子：当然。

 

PJ: What did you think of this experiment, was it easy or hard?

PJ：你怎么看的 这个实验，是容易还是难？

 

Man: It was easy.

男子：很容易。

 

PJ: During the experiments, I actually switched the pictures three times. Was this anything you noticed?

PJ：在实验过程中，我实际上切换了 图片三遍。 你注意到了吗？

 

Man: No. I didn't notice any of that.

男子：没有。我什么都没注意到。

 

PJ: Not at all? Man: No. Switching the pictures as far as ...

男子：没有。我什么都没注意到。

 

PJ: Yeah, you were pointing at one of them but I actually gave you the opposite.

男子：没有。我什么都没注意到。

 

Man: The opposite one. OK, when you -- No. Shows you how much my attention span was.

男子：正好相反。 好的，当你 -- 不。显示多少 我的注意力跨度是。

 

PJ: Did you notice that sometimes during the experiment I switched the pictures?

PJ：你有没有注意到有时 在实验过程中我切换了图片？

 

Woman 2: No, I did not notice that.

PJ：你有没有注意到有时 在实验过程中我切换了图片？

 

PJ: You were pointing at one, but then I gave you the other one. No inclination of that happening?

PJ：你指着一个， 但后来我给了你另一个。 没有这种倾向吗？

 

Woman 2: No.

女人2：没有。

 

Woman 2: I did not notice.

女人2：我没有注意到。

 

PJ: Thank you.

潘：谢谢。

 

Woman 2: Thank you.

女人2：谢谢。

 

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：好的，所以你可能 现在想通了，诀窍是我有 每手两张牌，当我把其中一张递过去时，黑色的一张就消失了 进入桌子上的黑色表面。 所以使用这样的图片，通常不超过20% 的参与者检测到这些尝试。 正如你在电影中看到的那样，当最后 我们解释发生了什么，他们非常惊讶，经常拒绝 相信伎俩已经做好了。 所以这说明这种效果 非常健壮，效果真实。 但如果你有兴趣 在自我认识中，就像我一样，更有趣的是，好吧，那么他们说了什么 当他们解释这些选择时？

 

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.

所以我们对口头报告做了很多分析。 在这些实验中。 这张图只是表明，如果你比较 他们在操纵审判和非操纵审判中所说的话，那就是当他们解释的时候 他们做出的正常选择和我们操纵结果的选择，我们发现它们非常相似。 所以他们同样情绪化， 同样具体，它们被表达出来 具有相同的确定性。

 

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.

因此，从中得出的有力结论是，如果真正的选择之间没有区别 还有一个纵的选择，也许我们一直在编造事情。

 

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.

但我们也做过研究，试图与他们所说的相匹配。 与实际的面孔。 然后我们发现这样的事情。 所以在这里，这个男性参与者， 他更喜欢左边的女孩，他最终选择了右边的那个。 然后，他解释说 他的选择是这样的。 “她容光焕发。 我宁愿接近她 在酒吧比另一个。 我喜欢耳环。 无论什么让他选择 左边的女孩，不可能是耳环，因为它们实际上是 坐在右边的女孩身上。 所以这是一个明显的例子 事后建设。 所以他们只是解释了 之后的选择。

 

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.

所以这个实验表明，好吧，如果我们没有检测到 我们的选择已经改变，我们将立即开始 用另一种方式解释它们。 我们还发现，参与者 经常开始选择另一种选择，他们被引导相信他们喜欢。 因此，如果我们让他们再次选择，他们现在将选择脸 他们以前拒绝了。 所以这就是效果 我们称之为“选择盲目”。 我们已经做到了 许多不同的研究 - 我们尝试了消费者的选择，基于味觉和嗅觉的选择 甚至推理问题。

 

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.

所以这个实验表明，好吧，如果我们没有检测到 我们的选择已经改变，我们将立即开始 用另一种方式解释它们。 我们还发现，参与者 经常开始选择另一种选择，他们被引导相信他们喜欢。 因此，如果我们让他们再次选择，他们现在将选择脸 他们以前拒绝了。 所以这就是效果 我们称之为“选择盲目”。 我们已经做到了 许多不同的研究 - 我们尝试了消费者的选择，基于味觉和嗅觉的选择 甚至推理问题。

 

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.

所以这个实验表明，好吧，如果我们没有检测到 我们的选择已经改变，我们将立即开始 用另一种方式解释它们。 我们还发现，参与者 经常开始选择另一种选择，他们被引导相信他们喜欢。 因此，如果我们让他们再次选择，他们现在将选择脸 他们以前拒绝了。 所以这就是效果 我们称之为“选择盲目”。 我们已经做到了 许多不同的研究 - 我们尝试了消费者的选择，基于味觉和嗅觉的选择 甚至推理问题。

 

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.

所以这个实验表明，好吧，如果我们没有检测到 我们的选择已经改变，我们将立即开始 用另一种方式解释它们。 我们还发现，参与者 经常开始选择另一种选择，他们被引导相信他们喜欢。 因此，如果我们让他们再次选择，他们现在将选择脸 他们以前拒绝了。 所以这就是效果 我们称之为“选择盲目”。 我们已经做到了 许多不同的研究 - 我们尝试了消费者的选择，基于味觉和嗅觉的选择 甚至推理问题。

 

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.

但是，当然，有 也牵扯到一个把戏。 所以首先，我们走到人们面前，我们问他们 关于他们的投票意向，然后当他们开始填写时，我们会填写一组答案 走向相反的方向。 我们会把它放在记事本下面。 当我们收到问卷时，我们只需将其粘在上面即可 参与者自己的答案。 所以在那里，它消失了。 然后我们会问 关于每个问题：你是如何在这里推理的？ 他们会陈述原因，我们将一起总结 他们的总分。 最后，他们会声明 他们的投票意向再次出现。

 

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.

但是，当然，有 也牵扯到一个把戏。 所以首先，我们走到人们面前，我们问他们 关于他们的投票意向，然后当他们开始填写时，我们会填写一组答案 走向相反的方向。 我们会把它放在记事本下面。 当我们收到问卷时，我们只需将其粘在上面即可 参与者自己的答案。 所以在那里，它消失了。 然后我们会问 关于每个问题：你是如何在这里推理的？ 他们会陈述原因，我们将一起总结 他们的总分。 最后，他们会声明 他们的投票意向再次出现。

 

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.

然后当 他们被要求激励他们的选择？ 在这里，我们找到了更多 有趣的口头报告比与面孔相比。 人们说这样的话， 我会读给你听的。 所以，“大规模的政府监控 的电子邮件和互联网流量应该被允许作为打击的手段 国际犯罪和恐怖主义。 “所以你在某种程度上同意 用这句话。“是。” “那你是怎么在这里推理的？” “嗯，就像，因为它很难得到 在国际犯罪和恐怖主义方面，我认为应该有 诸如此类的工具。 然后这个人记得一个争论 早上从报纸上。 “就像今天的报纸一样，它说他们可以喜欢， 听监狱里的手机，如果帮派头目试图继续 他从内部犯下的罪行。 我认为这是疯狂的 我们的力量太小了，以至于当我们真正拥有这些事情时，我们无法阻止这些事情。 这样做的可能性。 然后有一点点 最后来回：“我不喜欢他们有访问权限 对我所做的一切，但我仍然认为 从长远来看，这是值得的。 所以，如果你不知道这个人刚刚参加了 一个选择盲目的实验，我想你不会质疑这是真实的态度 那个人。

 

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.

最后会发生什么， 有投票意向？ 我们发现 - 那个也是 明显受到问卷的影响。 所以我们有10个参与者从左到右移动 或从右到左。 我们还有另外 19 个 从明确的投票意图到不确定。 有些从不确定 明确投票意向。 然后有很多参与者 自始至终都保持不确定。 这个数字很有趣，因为如果你看 民意调查机构说，你越接近选举，唯一在起作用的人就是那些 被认为是不确定的。 但是我们表明，实际上会考虑的要多得多。 改变他们的态度。

 

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.

当然，在这里我必须指出， 不允许将其用作实际方法 在选举前改变人们的选票，我们在事后清楚地向他们汇报并给了他们每一个 有机会变回他们首先想到的任何东西。 但这显示的是 如果你能让人们看到相反的观点并参与其中 在与自己的对话中，这实际上可以使他们 改变他们的观点。 还行。

 

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.

那么这一切意味着什么呢？ 我认为这是怎么回事？ 所以首先，很多我们称之为自我认识的东西。 其实是自我解读。 所以我看到自己做出选择，然后当我被问到为什么时，我只是试着做出 当我做出解释时，尽可能多地理解它。 但我们做得如此之快 如此轻松，以至于我们认为我们实际上知道答案 当我们回答为什么时。 由于这是一种解释，我们当然有时会犯错误。 我们犯错误的方式相同 当我们试图理解别人时。 所以当你问别人时要小心 问题“为什么”，因为可能会发生什么 如果你问他们，“那你为什么支持这个问题？ “你为什么留在这份工作上 或者这种关系？“——当你问为什么时会发生什么？ 是你实际上创造了一种不存在的态度 在你问这个问题之前。

 

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.

这当然很重要 在你的职业生涯中也是如此，或者可能是。 如果，比如说，你设计了一些东西 然后你问人们，“你为什么认为这是好是坏？ 或者如果你是一名记者 问一位政治家：“那么，你为什么做出这个决定？ 或者，如果您确实是政治家并尝试解释 为什么做出某个决定。

 

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.

所以这一切似乎有点令人不安。 但如果你想看看它 从积极的方向来看，它可以被视为显示，好吧，所以我们实际上是 比我们想象的要灵活一些。 我们可以改变主意。 我们的态度不是一成不变的。 我们也可以改变 别人的思想，如果我们能得到他们 参与问题并从相反的角度看待它。 在我自己的个人生活中， 自从开始这项研究以来—— 所以我和我的搭档， 我们一直有一条规则，你可以收回东西。 就因为我说 一年前我喜欢的东西，并不意味着我仍然喜欢它。 并摆脱需求 保持一致实际上是一种巨大的解脱，并使 关系生活如此糊涂更容易过。

 

Anyway, so the conclusion must be: know that you don't know yourself. Or at least not as well as you think you do.

无论如何，所以结论必须是：知道你不了解自己。 或者至少没有那么好 正如你认为的那样。

 

Thanks.

谢谢。