00:13

When you have 21 minutes to speak, two million years seems like a really long time. But evolutionarily, two million years is nothing. And yet in two million years, the human brain has nearly tripled in mass, going from the one-and-a-quarter pound brain of our ancestor here, Habilis, to the almost three-pound meatloaf that everybody here has between their ears. What is it about a big brain that nature was so eager for every one of us to have one?

00:43

Well, it turns out when brains triple in size, they don't just get three times bigger; they gain new structures.And one of the main reasons our brain got so big is because it got a new part, called the "frontal lobe."Particularly, a part called the "pre-frontal cortex." What does a pre-frontal cortex do for you that should justifythe entire architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?

01:07

It turns out the pre-frontal cortex does lots of things, but one of the most important things it does is an experience simulator. Pilots practice in flight simulators so that they don't make real mistakes in planes.Human beings have this marvelous adaptation that they can actually have experiences in their heads before they try them out in real life. This is a trick that none of our ancestors could do, and that no other animal can do quite like we can. It's a marvelous adaptation. It's up there with opposable thumbs and standing upright and language as one of the things that got our species out of the trees and into the shopping mall.

01:47

(Laughter)

01:49

All of you have done this. Ben and Jerry's doesn't have liver-and-onion ice cream, and it's not because they whipped some up, tried it and went, "Yuck." It's because, without leaving your armchair, you can simulate that flavor and say "yuck" before you make it.

02:07

Let's see how your experience simulators are working. Let's just run a quick diagnostic before I proceed with the rest of the talk. Here's two different futures that I invite you to contemplate. You can try to simulate them and tell me which one you think you might prefer. One of them is winning the lottery. This is about 314 million dollars. And the other is becoming paraplegic.

02:30

(Laughter)

02:31

Just give it a moment of thought. You probably don't feel like you need a moment of thought.

02:35

Interestingly, there are data on these two groups of people, data on how happy they are. And this is exactly what you expected, isn't it? But these aren't the data. I made these up!

02:47

These are the data. You failed the pop quiz, and you're hardly five minutes into the lecture. Because the fact is that a year after losing the use of their legs, and a year after winning the lotto, lottery winners and paraplegicsare equally happy with their lives.

03:05

Don't feel too bad about failing the first pop quiz, because everybody fails all of the pop quizzes all of the time. The research that my laboratory has been doing, that economists and psychologists around the country have been doing, has revealed something really quite startling to us, something we call the "impact bias,"which is the tendency for the simulator to work badly. For the simulator to make you believe that different outcomes are more different than in fact they really are.

03:32

From field studies to laboratory studies, we see that winning or losing an election, gaining or losing a romantic partner, getting or not getting a promotion, passing or not passing a college test, on and on, have far less impact, less intensity and much less duration than people expect them to have. This almost floors me -- a recent study showing how major life traumas affect people suggests that if it happened over three months ago, with only a few exceptions, it has no impact whatsoever on your happiness.

04:11

Why? Because happiness can be synthesized. Sir Thomas Brown wrote in 1642, "I am the happiest man alive.I have that in me that can convert poverty to riches, adversity to prosperity. I am more invulnerable than Achilles; fortune hath not one place to hit me." What kind of remarkable machinery does this guy have in his head?

04:34

Well, it turns out it's precisely the same remarkable machinery that all off us have. Human beings have something that we might think of as a "psychological immune system." A system of cognitive processes, largely non-conscious cognitive processes, that help them change their views of the world, so that they can feel better about the worlds in which they find themselves. Like Sir Thomas, you have this machine. Unlike Sir Thomas, you seem not to know it.

05:05

We synthesize happiness, but we think happiness is a thing to be found. Now, you don't need me to give youtoo many examples of people synthesizing happiness, I suspect. Though I'm going to show you some experimental evidence, you don't have to look very far for evidence. I took a copy of the New York Times and tried to find some instances of people synthesizing happiness. Here are three guys synthesizing happiness."I'm better off physically, financially, mentally ... "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." "I believe it turned out for the best."

05:35

Who are these characters who are so damn happy? The first one is Jim Wright. Some of you are old enough to remember: he was the chairman of the House of Representatives and he resigned in disgrace when this young Republican named Newt Gingrich found out about a shady book deal he had done. He lost everything.The most powerful Democrat in the country lost everything. He lost his money, he lost his power. What does he have to say all these years later? "I am so much better off physically, financially, mentally and in almost every other way." What other way would there be to be better off? Vegetably? Minerally? Animally? He's pretty much covered them there.

06:09

Moreese Bickham is somebody you've never heard of. Moreese Bickham uttered these words upon being released. He was 78 years old. He'd spent 37 years in a Louisiana State Penitentiary for a crime he didn't commit. [He was ultimately released for good behavior halfway through his sentence.] What did he say about his experience? "I don't have one minute's regret. It was a glorious experience." Glorious! He is not saying,"Well, there were some nice guys. They had a gym." "Glorious," a word we usually reserve for something like a religious experience.

06:38

Harry S. Langerman uttered these words, and he's somebody you might have known but didn't, because in 1949 he read a little article in the paper about a hamburger stand owned by two brothers named McDonalds.And he thought, "That's a really neat idea!" So he went to find them. They said, "We can give you a franchise on this for 3,000 bucks." Harry went back to New York, asked his brother, an investment banker, to loan him the $3,000, and his brother's immortal words were, "You idiot, nobody eats hamburgers." He wouldn't lend him the money, and of course, six months later Ray Kroc had exactly the same idea. It turns out people do eat hamburgers, and Ray Kroc, for a while, became the richest man in America.

07:13

And then, finally, some of you recognize this young photo of Pete Best, who was the original drummer for the Beatles, until they, you know, sent him out on an errand and snuck away and picked up Ringo on a tour. Well, in 1994, when Pete Best was interviewed -- yes, he's still a drummer; yes, he's a studio musician -- he had this to say: "I'm happier than I would have been with the Beatles."

07:35

Okay. There's something important to be learned from these people, and it is the secret of happiness. Here it is, finally to be revealed. First: accrue wealth, power, and prestige, then lose it.

07:45

(Laughter)

07:48

Second: spend as much of your life in prison as you possibly can.

07:52

(Laughter)

07:53

Third: make somebody else really, really rich. And finally: never ever join the Beatles.

07:59

(Laughter) Yeah, right. Because when people synthesize happiness, as these gentlemen seem to have done,we all smile at them, but we kind of roll our eyes and say, "Yeah right, you never really wanted the job." "Oh yeah, right. You really didn't have that much in common with her, and you figured that out just about the timeshe threw the engagement ring in your face." We smirk because we believe that synthetic happiness is not of the same quality as what we might call "natural happiness."

08:27

What are these terms? Natural happiness is what we get when we get what we wanted, and synthetic happiness is what we make when we don't get what we wanted. And in our society, we have a strong beliefthat synthetic happiness is of an inferior kind.

08:43

Why do we have that belief? Well, it's very simple. What kind of economic engine would keep churning if we believed that not getting what we want could make us just as happy as getting it? With all apologies to my friend Matthieu Ricard, a shopping mall full of Zen monks is not going to be particularly profitable, because they don't want stuff enough.

09:07

(Laughter)

09:08

I want to suggest to you that synthetic happiness is every bit as real and enduring as the kind of happiness you stumble upon when you get exactly what you were aiming for. I'm a scientist, so I'm going to do this not with rhetoric, but by marinating you in a little bit of data.

09:24

Let me first show you an experimental paradigm that is used to demonstrate the synthesis of happiness among regular old folks. And this isn't mine. It's a 50-year-old paradigm called the "free choice paradigm." It's very simple. You bring in, say, six objects, and you ask a subject to rank them from the most to the least liked.In this case, because this experiment uses them, these are Monet prints. So, everybody can rank these Monet prints from the one they like the most, to the one they like the least. Now we give you a choice: "We happen to have some extra prints in the closet. We're going to give you one as your prize to take home. We happen to have number three and number four," we tell the subject. This is a bit of a difficult choice, because neither one is preferred strongly to the other, but naturally, people tend to pick number three because they liked it a little better than number four.

10:13

Sometime later -- it could be 15 minutes; it could be 15 days -- the same stimuli are put before the subject,and the subject is asked to re-rank the stimuli. "Tell us how much you like them now." What happens? Watch as happiness is synthesized. This is the result that has been replicated over and over again. You're watching happiness be synthesized. Would you like to see it again? Happiness! "The one I got is really better than I thought! That other one I didn't get sucks!" That's the synthesis of happiness.

10:42

(Laughter)

10:43

Now, what's the right response to that? "Yeah, right!" Now, here's the experiment we did, and I hope this is going to convince you that "Yeah, right!" was not the right response.

10:55

We did this experiment with a group of patients who had anterograde amnesia. These are hospitalized patients. Most of them have Korsakoff's syndrome, a polyneuritic psychosis. They drank way too much, and they can't make new memories. OK? They remember their childhood, but if you walk in and introduce yourself, and then leave the room, when you come back, they don't know who you are.

11:17

We took our Monet prints to the hospital. And we asked these patients to rank them from the one they liked the most to the one they liked the least. We then gave them the choice between number three and number four. Like everybody else, they said, "Gee, thanks Doc! That's great! I could use a new print. I'll take number three." We explained we would have number three mailed to them. We gathered up our materials and we went out of the room, and counted to a half hour.

11:45

(Laughter)

11:46

Back into the room, we say, "Hi, we're back." The patients, bless them, say, "Ah, Doc, I'm sorry, I've got a memory problem; that's why I'm here. If I've met you before, I don't remember." "Really, you don't remember? I was just here with the Monet prints?" "Sorry, Doc, I just don't have a clue." "No problem, Jim. All I want you to do is rank these for me from the one you like the most to the one you like the least."

12:11

What do they do? Well, let's first check and make sure they're really amnesiac. We ask these amnesiac patients to tell us which one they own, which one they chose last time, which one is theirs. And what we find is amnesiac patients just guess. These are normal controls, where if I did this with you, all of you would know which print you chose. But if I do this with amnesiac patients, they don't have a clue. They can't pick their print out of a lineup.

12:38

Here's what normal controls do: they synthesize happiness. Right? This is the change in liking score, the change from the first time they ranked to the second time they ranked. Normal controls show -- that was the magic I showed you; now I'm showing it to you in graphical form -- "The one I own is better than I thought.The one I didn't own, the one I left behind, is not as good as I thought." Amnesiacs do exactly the same thing. Think about this result.

13:04

These people like better the one they own, but they don't know they own it. "Yeah, right" is not the right response! What these people did when they synthesized happiness is they really, truly changed their affective, hedonic, aesthetic reactions to that poster. They're not just saying it because they own it, because they don't know they own it.

13:32

When psychologists show you bars, you know that they are showing you averages of lots of people. And yet, all of us have this psychological immune system, this capacity to synthesize happiness, but some of us do this trick better than others. And some situations allow anybody to do it more effectively than other situations do. It turns out that freedom, the ability to make up your mind and change your mind, is the friend of natural happiness, because it allows you to choose among all those delicious futures and find the one that you would most enjoy. But freedom to choose, to change and make up your mind, is the enemy of synthetic happiness.

14:16

And I'm going to show you why. Dilbert already knows, of course. "Dogbert's tech support. How may I abuse you?" "My printer prints a blank page after every document." "Why complain about getting free paper?""Free? Aren't you just giving me my own paper?" "Look at the quality of the free paper compared to your lousy regular paper! Only a fool or a liar would say that they look the same!" "Now that you mention it, it does seem a little silkier!" "What are you doing?" "I'm helping people accept the things they cannot change." Indeed.

14:43

The psychological immune system works best when we are totally stuck, when we are trapped. This is the difference between dating and marriage. You go out on a date with a guy, and he picks his nose; you don't go out on another date. You're married to a guy and he picks his nose? He has a heart of gold. Don't touch the fruitcake! You find a way to be happy with what's happened.

15:04

(Laughter)

15:05

Now, what I want to show you is that people don't know this about themselves, and not knowing this can work to our supreme disadvantage.

15:13

Here's an experiment we did at Harvard. We created a black-and-white photography course, and we allowed students to come in and learn how to use a darkroom. So we gave them cameras; they went around campus;they took 12 pictures of their favorite professors and their dorm room and their dog, and all the other things they wanted to have Harvard memories of. They bring us the camera; we make up a contact sheet; they figure out which are the two best pictures; and we now spend six hours teaching them about darkrooms. And they blow two of them up, and they have two gorgeous eight-by-10 glossies of meaningful things to them, and we say, "Which one would you like to give up?" "I have to give one up?" "Yes, we need one as evidence of the class project. So you have to give me one. You have to make a choice. You get to keep one, and I get to keep one."

15:57

Now, there are two conditions in this experiment. In one case, the students are told, "But you know, if you want to change your mind, I'll always have the other one here, and in the next four days, before I actually mail it to headquarters" -- Yeah, "headquarters" -- "I'll be glad to swap it out with you. In fact, I'll come to your dorm room, just give me an email. Better yet, I'll check with you. You ever want to change your mind, it's totally returnable." The other half of the students are told exactly the opposite: "Make your choice, and by the way, the mail is going out, gosh, in two minutes, to England. Your picture will be winging its way over the Atlantic. You will never see it again." Half of the students in each of these conditions are asked to make predictions about how much they're going to come to like the picture that they keep and the picture they leave behind. Other students are just sent back to their little dorm rooms and they are measured over the next three to six days on their liking, satisfaction with the pictures. And look at what we find.

16:55

First of all, here's what students think is going to happen. They think they're going to maybe come to like the picture they chose a little more than the one they left behind, but these are not statistically significant differences. It's a very small increase, and it doesn't much matter whether they were in the reversible or irreversible condition.

17:14

Wrong-o. Bad simulators. Because here's what's really happening. Both right before the swap and five days later, people who are stuck with that picture, who have no choice, who can never change their mind, like it a lot! And people who are deliberating -- "Should I return it? Have I gotten the right one? Maybe this isn't the good one? Maybe I left the good one?" -- have killed themselves. They don't like their picture, and in fact even after the opportunity to swap has expired, they still don't like their picture. Why? Because the [reversible] condition is not conducive to the synthesis of happiness.

17:51

So here's the final piece of this experiment. We bring in a whole new group of naive Harvard students and we say, "You know, we're doing a photography course, and we can do it one of two ways. We could do it so that when you take the two pictures, you'd have four days to change your mind, or we're doing another course where you take the two pictures and you make up your mind right away and you can never change it. Which course would you like to be in?" Duh! 66 percent of the students, two-thirds, prefer to be in the course where they have the opportunity to change their mind. Hello? 66 percent of the students choose to be in the coursein which they will ultimately be deeply dissatisfied with the picture. Because they do not know the conditions under which synthetic happiness grows.

18:38

The Bard said everything best, of course, and he's making my point here but he's making it hyperbolically:"'Tis nothing good or bad / But thinking makes it so." It's nice poetry, but that can't exactly be right. Is there really nothing good or bad? Is it really the case that gall bladder surgery and a trip to Paris are just the same thing? (Laughter) That seems like a one-question IQ test. They can't be exactly the same.

19:06

In more turgid prose, but closer to the truth, was the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, and he said this. This is worth contemplating: "The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life seems to arise from overrating the difference between one permanent situation and another -- Some of these situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others, but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardor which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice, or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse for the horror of our own injustice." In other words: yes, some things are better than others.

19:55

We should have preferences that lead us into one future over another. But when those preferences drive us too hard and too fast because we have overrated the difference between these futures, we are at risk. When our ambition is bounded, it leads us to work joyfully. When our ambition is unbounded, it leads us to lie, to cheat, to steal, to hurt others, to sacrifice things of real value. When our fears are bounded, we're prudent, we're cautious, we're thoughtful. When our fears are unbounded and overblown, we're reckless, and we're cowardly.

20:34

The lesson I want to leave you with, from these data, is that our longings and our worries are both to some degree overblown, because we have within us the capacity to manufacture the very commodity we are constantly chasing when we choose experience.

20:52

Thank you. (Applause)

00:11

相對(duì)二十一分鐘的演講來(lái)說(shuō)慧脱， 兩百萬(wàn)年顯得非常漫長(zhǎng)。 但是從進(jìn)化的角度來(lái)看棠隐，兩百萬(wàn)年只是一瞬間晾嘶。 在兩百萬(wàn)年中廊散， 大腦腦容量從我們祖先能人的1.25磅慰技， 增大了近三倍成了現(xiàn)在的3磅沃呢。 自然給予我們的大腦有什么特別之處呢气堕？

00:41

當(dāng)我們的腦量擴(kuò)大三倍的時(shí)候， 大腦不僅僅在體積上有了改變畔师，它在結(jié)構(gòu)上也發(fā)生了變化娶靡。 我們大腦變大的最大原因就是它有了新的一部分，叫做 額葉看锉。其中尤為重要的是前額葉外皮姿锭。 是什么讓前額葉外皮成 人腦中如此重要的一部分？

01:05

腦前額葉外皮有很多功能伯铣， 其中最重要的是 它擁有一種創(chuàng)造模擬經(jīng)驗(yàn)的功能呻此。 飛行員利用在飛行模擬器中的訓(xùn)練 來(lái)防止在真實(shí)飛行中產(chǎn)生失誤。 人類有驚人的適應(yīng)性腔寡， 他們可以在大腦中體驗(yàn) 未曾真實(shí)經(jīng)歷的東西焚鲜。 這個(gè)技巧是我們的祖先們都不會(huì)的， 也沒(méi)有任何動(dòng)物會(huì)放前。 這種適應(yīng)性真不可思議忿磅！ 這一特征和對(duì)生拇指，直立行走以及語(yǔ)言 使我們從樹(shù)上 進(jìn)化到了購(gòu)物中心凭语。

01:46

現(xiàn)在-（笑聲）-我們大家都能做這些葱她。 我的意思是，比如 Ben and Jerry's (一個(gè)冰激凌連鎖店）沒(méi)有肝和洋蔥口味的冰激淋叽粹。 并不是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)囎隽艘幌吕佬В瑖L了嘗，而后“Yuck” （表示惡心）虫几。 而是因?yàn)槟阕谝巫由?就可以想象肝和洋蔥的口味的冰激淋是怎樣惡心了。

02:04

讓我們來(lái)看看經(jīng)驗(yàn)?zāi)M器是如何工作的挽拔。 在我繼續(xù)我的演說(shuō)之前讓我們來(lái)做一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)短的試驗(yàn)辆脸。 這里有兩個(gè)不同的未來(lái)，我想邀請(qǐng)你們一起來(lái)參與螃诅。 你可以幻想這兩種未來(lái)啡氢，看看你更喜歡哪一種。 第一種未來(lái)是贏了價(jià)值3.14億美元的彩票术裸。 第二種是截癱倘是。 我給你們幾分鐘考慮一下。 你也許覺(jué)得根本不用考慮袭艺。

02:35

這里有一些很有趣的數(shù)據(jù)搀崭。這些數(shù)據(jù)顯示了這兩組人 到底有多快樂(lè)。 是不是這正如你們所料？ 可其實(shí)這是我胡謅的數(shù)據(jù)瘤睹。

02:47

這才是真正的數(shù)據(jù)升敲。你們都沒(méi)有通過(guò)突擊測(cè)試。這堂課開(kāi)始還不到5分鐘呢轰传。 事實(shí)是驴党，在失去雙腿一年之后， 和在贏了彩票一年之后获茬，中彩票的人和截癱患者 的快樂(lè)程度幾乎相同港庄。

03:03

現(xiàn)在，不要為沒(méi)有通過(guò)突擊測(cè)試而沮喪了恕曲。 因?yàn)閹缀鯖](méi)有人能通過(guò)這項(xiàng)突擊測(cè)試攘轩。 我實(shí)驗(yàn)室所做的研究， 還有全國(guó)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和心理學(xué)家所做的研究 顯示了一種讓人吃驚的東西码俩。 我們稱它為影響偏差度帮。 這是指人腦的模擬功能有犯錯(cuò)誤的傾向。 模擬器會(huì)夸大事物的不同結(jié)果 而這些結(jié)果實(shí)際上未必有多么的不同稿存。

03:31

現(xiàn)場(chǎng)研究和實(shí)驗(yàn)室研究都顯示 選舉的輸贏笨篷，伴侶的得失， 提升與否瓣履，考試成敗等等率翅， 對(duì)我們的影響及影響的時(shí)間長(zhǎng)短 都比人們想象的少。 事實(shí)上袖迎，最新的研究幾乎讓我都迷惑了冕臭。 最新的研究顯示，發(fā)生在三個(gè)月以前的 重大的創(chuàng)傷燕锥， 除了少數(shù)個(gè)別例子 對(duì)你今日的快樂(lè)幾乎沒(méi)有影響辜贵。

04:05

這是為什么？ 因?yàn)榭鞓?lè)是可以人工合成的归形。 托馬斯·布朗在1642年寫(xiě)到：“我是世界上最快樂(lè)的人托慨。 我可以將貧窮變?yōu)楦挥校瑢⒛婢匙優(yōu)轫樉场?我比阿奇里斯（Achilles）更無(wú)懈可擊暇榴，我用不著幸運(yùn)的眷顧厚棵。” 是什么力量讓他如此強(qiáng)大蔼紧？

04:30

這種力量是我們每個(gè)人都有婆硬。 人類具有一種心理免疫系統(tǒng)。 這個(gè)系統(tǒng)通是一個(gè)認(rèn)知過(guò)程奸例，基本上是無(wú)意識(shí)的認(rèn)知過(guò)程彬犯， 這種認(rèn)知可以改變?nèi)藗儗?duì)世界的認(rèn)識(shí)， 讓人們感到自己的生活美好。 像托馬斯爵士一樣躏嚎，你也具有這樣的能力蜜自。 與托馬斯爵士不同的是，你還沒(méi)有意識(shí)到你有這種能力卢佣。

05:00

我們都可以自己制造快樂(lè)重荠，盡管我們一直以為快樂(lè)是一種需要苦苦追尋的東西。 現(xiàn)在虚茶，我想你不用我舉太多人們自己合成快樂(lè)的例子戈鲁， 不過(guò)我還是想給你們看一下一些實(shí)驗(yàn)證據(jù)， 你并不用太費(fèi)勁地尋求證據(jù)嘹叫。

05:17

我上課時(shí)說(shuō)過(guò)要自我挑戰(zhàn)婆殿， 因此我隨便拿了一份紐約時(shí)報(bào)，試著從中尋找人們?nèi)斯ず铣煽鞓?lè)的例子罩扇。 這里有三個(gè)例子婆芦。 “我現(xiàn)在在心理上，經(jīng)濟(jì)上喂饥，感情上和精神上各方面都比以前好消约。” “我沒(méi)有一分鐘后悔過(guò)员帮』蛄福” “這個(gè)經(jīng)歷太榮耀了±谈撸”“我相信事情向最好的方向發(fā)展氯材。”

05:36

誰(shuí)如此快樂(lè)硝岗？ 第一位是吉姆·萊特（Jim Wright)氢哮。 年紀(jì)大一點(diǎn)的人可能記得：他是眾議院主席。 因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)名叫牛特·金瑞奇（Newt Gingrich）的年輕共和黨黨員 發(fā)現(xiàn)了他的一樁黑幕交易事件辈讶， 萊特被迫辭職命浴。 他失去了一切。這個(gè)在美國(guó)最有權(quán)的民主黨黨員 失去了一切贱除。 他失去了金錢(qián)，權(quán)利媳溺。 這么多年后月幌，他是怎么看待這些的？“我現(xiàn)在在心理上悬蔽，經(jīng)濟(jì)上扯躺，感情上和精神上等 各方面都比以前好。” 最好還能好成怎樣录语？ 植物上?礦物上倍啥？動(dòng)物上？他基本上都包括了澎埠。

06:10

你可能從來(lái)沒(méi)有聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)莫里斯·比克漢（Moreese Bickham)虽缕。 莫里斯·比克漢出獄后說(shuō)了這樣的話。 他七十八歲了蒲稳。 他因?yàn)橐豁?xiàng)錯(cuò)誤的判決在路易斯安那監(jiān)獄坐了三十七年牢氮趋。 他最終在七十八歲時(shí)通過(guò)了DNA測(cè)驗(yàn)確認(rèn)無(wú)罪才被釋放。 他是這樣描繪他的這些經(jīng)歷的呢江耀？ “我從來(lái)沒(méi)有一分鐘后悔剩胁。這個(gè)經(jīng)歷太榮耀了∠楣” 榮耀昵观！這個(gè)人不是在說(shuō)： “監(jiān)獄里有些人還是不錯(cuò)的。那里還有一個(gè)健身房舌稀“∪” 他說(shuō)的是“榮耀！” 我們通常專門(mén)用這個(gè)詞語(yǔ)來(lái)形容跟宗教相關(guān)的經(jīng)歷扩借。

06:39

哈里·朗格曼(Harry S Langerman）說(shuō)了這些椒惨。他本可以成為一個(gè)家喻戶曉的人物。 在1949年潮罪，他在報(bào)上看到一篇 關(guān)于麥當(dāng)勞兄弟擁有的一家漢堡小攤的報(bào)道康谆。 他立馬想到“這是一個(gè)好主意！” 他找到了麥當(dāng)勞兄弟嫉到。他們同意道： “給我們$3000沃暗， 我們就讓你開(kāi)連鎖店『味瘢” 哈里回到紐約孽锥，向他在投行工作的哥哥 借$3000。 他哥哥勸慰道： “你真是一個(gè)傻瓜细层。沒(méi)人會(huì)吃漢堡的惜辑。” 他沒(méi)有借到錢(qián)疫赎。 6個(gè)月之后盛撑，瑞·克羅克（Ray Croc）也有了同樣的想法。 結(jié)果是人們喜歡吃漢堡捧搞， 瑞·克羅克一時(shí)成為巨富抵卫。

07:16

最后眉尸， 你們也許會(huì)認(rèn)出年輕的比特·貝斯特（Pete Best), 他是甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)早期的一位鼓手幕随。 他們借故丟下了他，讓林格(Ringo)入伙。 1994年比特·貝斯特接受采訪的時(shí)候奔穿， -是的译秦，他還是一名鼓手做祝；是的型诚，他還是一名音樂(lè)家 -- 他說(shuō)到：“要是留在甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)，我不會(huì)這么快樂(lè)偎谁∽芴玻”

07:39

好了。我們可以從這些人身上學(xué)到很重要的東西巡雨。 那是快樂(lè)的秘訣闰渔。 讓我們總結(jié)一下。 一：積聚財(cái)富铐望，權(quán)利和威望冈涧， 然后失去這些東西。（笑聲） 二：把牢底坐穿正蛙。 （笑聲）三：讓他人成為巨富督弓。（笑聲） 最后：千萬(wàn)別加入甲殼蟲(chóng)樂(lè)隊(duì)。（笑聲）

08:04

我像澤.法蘭克（Ze Frank）一樣可以猜想到你會(huì)想什么乒验。 你們?cè)谙搿芭队匏恚前伞锻全！?因?yàn)楫?dāng)人們像以上例舉的人一樣去合成快樂(lè)時(shí)狂塘， 我們會(huì)沖他們微笑，同時(shí)會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)動(dòng)著眼睛說(shuō)： “哦鳄厌，是吧荞胡。你從來(lái)沒(méi)有真正想要那份工作×撕浚”“哦泪漂，是的，你本來(lái)就 和她沒(méi)有什么共同點(diǎn)歪泳， 你知道這點(diǎn)時(shí)萝勤，她也差不多要 把訂婚戒指取下來(lái)扔給你∧派。”

08:30

我們假笑是因?yàn)槲覀兿嘈藕铣傻目鞓?lè) 比不上天然的快樂(lè)纵刘。 什么是天然的快樂(lè)和人工合成的快樂(lè)？ 天然的快樂(lè)是得到我們渴求的東西荸哟。 人工合成的快樂(lè)則是在得不到我們渴求的東西時(shí)假哎，自己制造出來(lái)的東西。 現(xiàn)在這個(gè)社會(huì)堅(jiān)信 人工合成的快樂(lè)是次品鞍历。 為什么人們有這樣的觀點(diǎn)舵抹？ 那很簡(jiǎn)單。 如果我們都相信得到或得不到自己想要的東西都能一樣快樂(lè)劣砍， 那經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎還如何高速運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)惧蛹？

09:06

先讓我向馬修·理查德（Matthieu Ricard）表示歉意， 要是光顧商場(chǎng)的都是和尚刑枝， 那么這些商場(chǎng)豈不是都不賺錢(qián)了香嗓？ 因?yàn)楹蜕型ǔ６紱](méi)有什么物質(zhì)需求。 我想告訴你們的是装畅，人工合成的快樂(lè) 是真實(shí)而持久的靠娱。 它和那種因?yàn)榈玫轿覀兛是蟮臇|西 而感受到的快樂(lè)一樣。 我是一個(gè)科學(xué)家掠兄。我不光是說(shuō)一些好聽(tīng)的結(jié)論像云， 我還要向你們提供一些數(shù)據(jù)。

09:34

第一個(gè)試驗(yàn)證據(jù) 顯示了普通人的人工合成的快樂(lè)蚂夕。 這不是我的試驗(yàn)迅诬。 這個(gè)50年前做的實(shí)驗(yàn)叫做自由選擇。 它很簡(jiǎn)單婿牍。 你有6件物品侈贷。 你讓受試者把這6件物品按照他們的喜愛(ài)程度排序。 在這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)中 我們用6幅莫奈的畫(huà)等脂。每個(gè)人都把畫(huà) 按照他們最喜歡的到最不喜歡的排列俏蛮。 現(xiàn)在我們給你一個(gè)選擇。 “我們正好有一些多余的畫(huà)慎菲。 我們將把畫(huà)作為獎(jiǎng)品給你嫁蛇。 我們正好有三號(hào)和四號(hào)畫(huà)÷陡茫” 這個(gè)選擇有點(diǎn)困難睬棚， 因?yàn)槭茉囌邔?duì)兩幅畫(huà)的喜愛(ài)程度相當(dāng)。 很自然解幼，人們都傾向于選擇三號(hào)抑党。 因?yàn)樗麄兏矚g三號(hào)。

10:23

過(guò)了一段時(shí)間之后 - 這可能是15分鐘撵摆，也可能是15天底靠。 對(duì)同樣的畫(huà)， 我們叫受試者對(duì)同樣的畫(huà)再一次排序特铝∈钪校“告訴我們你現(xiàn)在有多喜歡這些畫(huà)了壹瘟？” 結(jié)果怎樣？快樂(lè)被人工合成了鳄逾。 我們反復(fù)進(jìn)行了同樣的實(shí)驗(yàn)稻轨。 你看到快樂(lè)被合成了吧！ 你還想看一下嗎雕凹？快樂(lè)殴俱！ “我有的這張比我預(yù)想的還要好。 我得不到的那張枚抵，其實(shí)不怎么樣线欲。”（笑聲）這就是人工合成的快樂(lè)汽摹。

10:52

現(xiàn)在你怎么想呢李丰？“哦，是吧竖慧！” 這是我們做的實(shí)驗(yàn)嫌套。 我希望這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)軌蜃屇阆嘈?“哦，是嗎圾旨！”不是正確的答案踱讨。

11:05

我們跟患有健忘癥的病人 做了同樣的實(shí)驗(yàn)。這些都是住院病人砍的。 大多數(shù)人都患有柯薩可夫（korsakoff）綜合征痹筛， 這是一種由于飲酒過(guò)度而造成的多發(fā)神經(jīng)炎精神癥。 患者記不住新發(fā)生的事情廓鞠。 明白嗎帚稠？他們能記得他們的童年，但是如果你自我介紹床佳， 然后離開(kāi)房間滋早， 當(dāng)你很快回到他們身邊時(shí)，他們不會(huì)記得你是誰(shuí)砌们。

11:27

我們把莫奈的畫(huà)拿到醫(yī)院去杆麸。 讓病人們來(lái)對(duì)他們 按照喜愛(ài)的程度排序。 然后我們讓他們選擇三號(hào)或者四號(hào)畫(huà)浪感。像很多人一樣昔头，他們說(shuō)： “哇，真太好了! 謝謝你影兽。 我有一幅新的畫(huà)了揭斧。 我要三號(hào)【撸” 我們解釋說(shuō)讹开，我們會(huì)把三號(hào)郵寄給他們盅视。 然后我們收起東西，離開(kāi)了病人的房間萧吠。 半個(gè)小時(shí)后左冬， 我們回去：“嘿，我們回來(lái)了纸型。” 病人們說(shuō)：“啊梅忌，醫(yī)生狰腌，非常抱歉， 我有一點(diǎn)記憶的毛病牧氮，所以才住院的琼腔。 如果我們見(jiàn)過(guò)面，我恐怕不能記得了踱葛〉ち”“哦，是嗎尸诽，吉姆甥材，你不記得了？我剛剛帶了幾幅莫奈的畫(huà)到這兒來(lái)的性含≈拚裕” “對(duì)不起，醫(yī)生商蕴，我真的不記得了叠萍。”“沒(méi)關(guān)系绪商，吉姆苛谷。我只是想讓你把這些畫(huà) 按照你喜愛(ài)的程度排序「裼簦”

12:21

他們?cè)趺醋隽烁沟睿肯茸屛覀兇_認(rèn) 他們是真的患有健忘癥。我們 讓這些病人告訴我們他們有哪幅畫(huà)理张， 他們上次選了哪幅畫(huà)赫蛇，哪幅是他們的。 我們發(fā)現(xiàn)健忘癥病人純粹在猜雾叭。 如果是正常對(duì)照者悟耘，如果我這樣問(wèn)你 你們都記得你選擇了那幅畫(huà)。 但是這些健忘癥病人织狐， 他們一點(diǎn)都不記得了暂幼。他們不能從一堆畫(huà)中選出我送他們的那張筏勒。

12:48

這是一般人做的：他們?nèi)斯ず铣煽鞓?lè)。 是吧旺嬉？這是喜愛(ài)程度的變化管行。 第一次排序到第二次排序的變化。 平常人的數(shù)據(jù)顯示 這正是我要向你們展示的‘魔法’ 現(xiàn)在我們用圖形來(lái)顯示這個(gè)變化邪媳。 “我有的比我想的還好捐顷。我沒(méi)擁有的， 其實(shí)并不怎么樣雨效⊙镐蹋” 健忘癥病人也做了同樣的事。想想這個(gè)結(jié)果徽龟。

13:14

這些病人更喜歡他們有的叮姑， 雖然他們并不知道自己擁有這個(gè)。 “哦据悔，真的嗎传透？”-你對(duì)此表示不屑？ 當(dāng)人們合成快樂(lè)時(shí)极颓， 他們真正的朱盐，真實(shí)的 從感情上和審美角度上改變了對(duì)那幅畫(huà)的看法。 他們這么說(shuō)不僅僅是因?yàn)樗麄儞碛羞@幅畫(huà)讼昆， 他們其實(shí)并不記得自己有那幅畫(huà)托享。

13:43

現(xiàn)在，當(dāng)心理學(xué)家給你們看這些圖形浸赫， 你知道他們是在顯示平均數(shù)據(jù)闰围。 我們大家都有這個(gè)心理免疫系統(tǒng)， 和人工合成快樂(lè)的能力既峡。 但是我們中的一些人比另外一些人對(duì)這樣的竅門(mén)掌握的更好羡榴。 同時(shí)，人們的心理免疫系統(tǒng)在某些特定環(huán)境下能 比在其他情況下運(yùn)行的更有效运敢。 自由校仑， 決斷力和改變決定的能力 是幫助我們獲得天然快樂(lè)的朋友。它能讓你 從各種可能情況中選擇你最喜歡的那種传惠。 但是自由選擇 決斷力和改變決定的能力-是人工合成快樂(lè)的敵人迄沫。 我來(lái)解釋這是為什么。

14:29

當(dāng)然卦方，呆伯特(Dilbert)已經(jīng)知道了羊瘩。 你一邊看卡通，一邊聽(tīng)我說(shuō)。 “Dogbert技術(shù)支持中心尘吗。我該怎么說(shuō)你逝她？” “我的打印機(jī)在每個(gè)文件打印完畢后都會(huì)出一張白紙〔谴罚” “你為什么要抱怨得到免費(fèi)的紙呢黔宛？” “免費(fèi)的？這本來(lái)就是我的紙扒苊场臀晃？” “哎，老兄酗宋，看看這些免費(fèi)的紙的質(zhì)量和 那些普通的紙积仗！ 只有傻子和騙子才會(huì)說(shuō)它們是一樣的⊥擅ǎ”“啊哎迄！在你說(shuō)了之后回右，這些紙看上去是要光滑一些∈浚” “你在干什么翔烁？” “我在幫助這些人接受他們不能改變的現(xiàn)實(shí)≈祭裕”的確是這樣蹬屹。

14:55

心理免疫系統(tǒng)在 我們沒(méi)有其他選擇時(shí)最有效。 這就是約會(huì)和婚姻的區(qū)別白华，是吧慨默？ 你出去和一個(gè)男人約會(huì)， 他扣扣鼻孔弧腥，你就不會(huì)跟他在約會(huì)了厦取。 如果你們結(jié)婚了，他扣扣鼻孔管搪。 嗯虾攻， 他有金子一般的心。 別動(dòng)那個(gè)水果蛋糕更鲁。是吧霎箍？（笑聲） 你自我開(kāi)導(dǎo)，滿于現(xiàn)狀澡为。 現(xiàn)在我告訴你漂坏， 如果人們不了解自己， 不知道他們有這個(gè)心理免疫系統(tǒng)，他們可能做一些很錯(cuò)誤的決定樊拓。

15:26

這是我們?cè)诠鸫髮W(xué)做的一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)纠亚。 我們開(kāi)設(shè)了黑白攝影課程。 學(xué)生們來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)如何使用暗室筋夏。 我們給他們相機(jī)蒂胞。他們?cè)谛@中采景。 每人能拍12張照片条篷。他們拍了他們最喜歡的教授骗随，寢室，他們的狗等等赴叹。 任何留給他們哈佛回憶的東西鸿染，都可以拍。 然后他們把相機(jī)給我們乞巧。我們做了一個(gè)膠片印出的小樣涨椒。 他們選出最好的兩張。 然后我們用了6個(gè)小時(shí)教他們?nèi)绾问褂冒凳摇?他們自己把兩張照片映出來(lái)绽媒。 他們有了兩張極有紀(jì)念意義的8*10的照片蚕冬。我們問(wèn) “哪一張你不要？” 他們問(wèn)：“我不能兩張都要嗎是辕？” “噢囤热，不能。我們需要一張來(lái)留底获三。 因此你必須放棄一張旁蔼。你一定要做一個(gè)決定。 你留一張疙教，我留一張棺聊。”

16:10

現(xiàn)在松逊，這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)又分為兩種躺屁。 第一種情況，學(xué)生們被告知经宏，“你知道犀暑， 如果你改變了主意，另外一張還在我這里烁兰。 我要四天以后才把這些照片寄到總部去耐亏。 我很樂(lè)意。是的沪斟，“總部”广辰。 我很樂(lè)意跟你換暇矫。事實(shí)上， 我會(huì)把照片送到你的寢室來(lái)?yè)Q择吊， 只要發(fā)電郵給我就行了李根。或者我會(huì)聯(lián)系你几睛。 只要你改變了主意房轿，我們可以換照片∷” 其他的學(xué)生被告知的正好相反： “選一張照片囱持。順便說(shuō)一下， 另外一張照片馬上就要寄到英國(guó)去焕济。 你的照片要漂洋過(guò)海纷妆。 你再也見(jiàn)不到它了∏缙” 然后掩幢， 我們讓每組中一半的學(xué)生 來(lái)預(yù)測(cè) 他們對(duì)留下的照片 和送走的照片的喜愛(ài)程度會(huì)如何。 其他的學(xué)生回到他們的寢室上鞠。 我們測(cè)量了在后來(lái)的三到六天之中粒蜈， 他們對(duì)照片的喜愛(ài)和滿意程度。 看看我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么旗国。

17:09

首先，這里是學(xué)生們覺(jué)得事情會(huì)怎樣注整。 他們想他們可能會(huì)更喜歡他們選擇的照片能曾， 而不是留給我們的那一張。但是這算不上是統(tǒng)計(jì)上的顯著差異肿轨。 差異很小寿冕， 能不能換照片影響并不大。

17:28

錯(cuò)啦椒袍！這一次模擬器工作得很不好驼唱！實(shí)際上， 在交換以前和5天后驹暑， 那些沒(méi)有交換權(quán)玫恳， 不能選擇, 不能更改決定的學(xué)生，非常喜歡他們的照片优俘。 另外的學(xué)生則在深思熟慮京办。“我應(yīng)該換照片嗎? 我選了好的那張嗎帆焕？也許這張并不好惭婿？ 交給老師的那張或許更好？”這些問(wèn)題簡(jiǎn)直折磨人。 他們不喜歡他們的照片财饥。事實(shí)上换吧， 甚至在交換期結(jié)束后， 他們還是不喜歡自己的照片钥星。為什么沾瓦？ 因?yàn)榭赡孓D(zhuǎn)的選擇不利于 人工合成的快樂(lè)。

18:06

這里是這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)的最后一部分打颤。 我們找了新的一批天真的哈佛學(xué)生暴拄。 我們告訴他們：“我們將開(kāi)設(shè)攝影課程，我們有兩種方案编饺。 一是你拍兩張照片乖篷， 然后有四天來(lái)選擇保留哪張照片。 另外一種是你拍攝兩張照片透且， 然后當(dāng)機(jī)立斷做選擇撕蔼。 一但做了選擇，你就不能更改秽誊。你愿意選擇那種方式鲸沮？ ”啊! 66%的學(xué)生，差不多三分之二 更愿意加入那個(gè)可以改變選擇的锅论。 喂讼溺！66%的學(xué)生選擇了那個(gè)讓他們 最終將非常不滿意照片的方案。 因?yàn)樗麄儾恢涝谑裁礂l件下最易，人工合成快樂(lè)有效怒坯。

18:52

莎士比亞說(shuō)的正好反映了我的看法。 他說(shuō)的有點(diǎn)夸張藻懒。 “事無(wú)善惡.思想使然剔猿。” 這是美麗的詩(shī)句嬉荆，但是并不一定全對(duì)归敬。 事真的無(wú)善惡之分嗎？ 膽囊手術(shù)真的和到巴黎旅行 一樣嗎鄙早？這聽(tīng)上去想一個(gè)IQ測(cè)試題汪茧。 他們并不完全一樣。

19:21

現(xiàn)代資本主義之父蝶锋，亞當(dāng)·斯密(Adam Smith)陆爽， 用浮華卻更貼近事實(shí)的語(yǔ)言 闡述如下。 這是值得思考的扳缕。 “人生中的悲劇與無(wú)序之源慌闭， 似乎皆來(lái)源于人們 過(guò)高地評(píng)估某種時(shí)局别威， 誠(chéng)然，某些時(shí)局確實(shí)值得人們追求驴剔， 但是省古，不管這種追求有多大的合理性， 我們都不可因這種癡情的追求而打破 謹(jǐn)慎丧失、公正的法則豺妓，亦不可破壞我們未來(lái)的心境。 因?yàn)榧偃缥覀冋娴哪敲醋霾级铮覀儽赜幸惶鞎?huì)憶及當(dāng)日的愚昧琳拭， 或者是因?yàn)樽约涸?jīng)的偏私而感到后悔∶柩椋”用另一句話說(shuō)：沒(méi)錯(cuò)白嘁，生活中確實(shí)存在某些事物比別的事物更有價(jià)值，

20:12

我們確實(shí)應(yīng)該追求價(jià)值更高的東西膘流。 但是絮缅，假如我們過(guò)分看重不同選擇之間的差異， 因而拼命的追求我們想要的東西時(shí)呼股， 我們就可能面臨危險(xiǎn)耕魄。 當(dāng)我們的追求不是無(wú)節(jié)制的時(shí)候，我們可以生活的快樂(lè)彭谁。 當(dāng)我們的追求不受節(jié)制的時(shí)候吸奴，我們會(huì)生活得很痛苦，甚至?xí)テ墼p缠局，偷竊奄抽，傷害他人， 更甚至是犧牲真正有價(jià)值的東西甩鳄。當(dāng)我們畏懼受控制時(shí)， 我們會(huì)行事謹(jǐn)慎额划、三思而后行妙啃。 當(dāng)我們的畏懼失去節(jié)制并無(wú)限膨脹的時(shí)候， 我們會(huì)變得魯莽大意俊戳，或者膽小如鼠揖赴。

20:51

最后用一句話來(lái)概括我們從這些數(shù)據(jù)中學(xué)到的東西： 我們每個(gè)人的期望與擔(dān)憂在一定程度上都被夸大了， 通過(guò)選擇感受抑胎，我們自己可以生產(chǎn)出 我們所不懈追求的那樣?xùn)|西燥滑。

21:09

謝謝。