## 字幕列表 影片播放

• Let's say you're on a game show.

假設你在一個有獎競賽節目上。

• You've already earned \$1000 in the first round when you land on the bonus space.

第一輪，當你轉到獎金那格時，你已贏得了一千元。

• Now, you have a choice.

你要做一個選擇。

• You can either take a \$500 bonus guaranteed or you can flip a coin.

你被保證可得到 500 元獎金，或者你可擲硬幣。

• If it's heads, you win \$1000 bonus.

如果是正面，你會贏 1000 元獎金。

• If it's tails, you get no bonus at all.

如果是背面，你得不到任何獎金。

• In the second round, you've earned \$2000 when you land on the penalty space.

第二輪你已贏了 2000 元， 但當你轉到罰款那格時...

• Now you have another choice.

你要做另一個選擇。

• You can either take a \$500 loss, or try your luck at the coin flip.

你可以接受損失 500 元，或者試試運氣擲硬幣。

• If it's heads, you lose nothing, but if it's tails, you lose \$1000 instead.

若是正面，你不會有任何損失，但若是反面，你會損失 1000 元。

• If you're like most people, you probably chose to take the guaranteed bonus in the first round and flip the coin in the second round.

如果你像大多數人，你可能在第一輪時選擇接受保證的獎金，並在第二輪時選擇擲硬幣。

• But if you think about it, this makes no sense.

但若仔細想想，這根本不合理。

• The odds and outcomes in both rounds are exactly the same.

勝算和結果在兩輪都是完全一樣。

• So why does the second round seem much scarier?

但為什麼第二輪看起來比較嚇人呢？

• The answer lies in a phenomenon known as loss aversion.

答案在於損失規避 (loss aversion) 的現象。

• Under rational economic theory, our decisions should follow a simple mathematical equation that weighs the level of risk against the amount at stake.

根據理性經濟理論，我們的決定會遵循一種簡單數學方程式，它會衡量「風險趨避」和「所涉金額 」。

• But studies have found that for many people, the negative psychological impact we feel from losing something is about twice as strong as the positive impact of gaining the same thing.

但研究發現，對大多數人而言，損失所導致的負面心理影響，是得到等量東西的正面影響的兩倍。

• Loss aversion is one cognitive bias that arises from heuristics, problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition rather than careful analysis.

損失規避是一種認知偏差， 它源於啟發法，「啟發法」是根據先前經驗和直覺來解決問題的方法，而不是根據仔細的分析。

• And these mental shortcuts can lead to irrational decisions, not like falling in love or bungee jumping off a cliff, but logical fallacies that can easily be proven wrong.

這些思考捷徑會導致我們做出不理性決定，不像墜入情網或懸崖高空彈跳的不理性，而是做出容易被證實錯的邏輯謬誤。

• Situations involving probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics.

在涉及機率時， 使用啟發法是非常不好的。

• For instance, say you were to roll a dice with four green faces and two red faces twenty times.

例如你要擲一個四面綠色、兩面紅色的骰子擲二十次。

• You can choose one of the following sequences of rolls, and if it shows up, you'll win \$25.

你可以選擇以下三種排序其中之一，若你選的有出現，你將贏得 25 元。

• Which would you pick?

你會選哪一個？

• In one study, 65% of the participants who were all college students chose sequence B even though A is shorter and contained within B, in other words, more likely.

在一個調查，65% 的大學生參與者選擇序列 B，可是 A 比較短，而且還包含在 B 中，所以說 A 比較可能。

• This is what's called a conjunction fallacy.

這就是所謂的合取謬誤 (conjunction fallacy)。

• Here, we expect to see more green rolls, so our brains can trick us into picking the less likely option.

在此，我們預料會擲出較多綠色面，所以大腦誘騙我們做了較不可能的選擇。

• Heuristics are also terrible at dealing with numbers in general.

通常，啟發法對處理數字方面也極糟榚。

• In one example, students were split into two groups.

在一個例子，把學生分成兩組。

• The first group was asked whether Mahatma Gandhi died before or after age 9, while the second was asked whether he died before or after age 140.

第一組被問聖雄甘地在 9 歲之前或之後死的，而第二組被問他在 140 歲之前或之後死的。

• Both numbers were obviously way off, but when the students were then asked to guess the actual age at which he died, the first group's answers averaged to 50 while the second group's averaged to 67.

這兩個數字很明顯都錯得離譜，但要兩組學生猜猜甘地死時的真實年齡時，第一組答案的平均值是 50 歲，第二組是 67 歲。

• Even though the clearly wrong information in the initial questions should have been irrelevant, it still affected the students' estimates.

雖然最初問題中明顯錯誤的訊息不應該考慮進去，但它還是影響了學生的評估。

• This is an example of the anchoring effect, and it's often used in marketing and negotiations to raise the prices that people are willing to pay.

這是錨定效應 (anchoring effect) 的例子，這效應常用在市場營銷和談判中，以提高顧客願意支付的價位。

• So, if heuristics lead to all these wrong decisions, why do we even have them?

那麼，如果啟發法導致所有這些錯誤判斷，為什麼我們還是需要它呢？

• Well, because they can be quite effective.

因為它們可以非常有效。

• For most of human history, survival depended on making quick decisions with limited information.

在大多數人類歷史上，生存之道在於用有限的訊息快速做出決定。

• When there's no time to logically analyze all the possibilities, heuristics can sometimes save our lives.

當沒有時間運用邏輯分析所有的可能性時，啟發法有時可以救我們一命。

• But today's environment requires far more complex decision-making, and these decisions are more biased by unconscious factors than we think, affecting everything from health and education to finance and criminal justice.

但今日的環境需要更複雜的決策，而這些決策受潛意識因素影響比我們想像更有偏頗，其影響從健康和教育，到經濟和刑事司法各方面。

• We can't just shut off our brain's heuristics, but we can learn to be aware of them.

我們不可能讓大腦完全遠離啟發法，但我們可以學會留意它。

• When you come to a situation involving numbers, probability, or multiple details, pause for a second and consider that the intuitive answer might not be the right one after all.

當面對的情況涉及數字、機率或許多細節時，停下來思考一下，畢竟直覺的答案不一定是正確的。

Let's say you're on a game show.

B1 中級 中文 美國腔 TED-Ed 損失 決策 選擇 甘地 理性

# 【TED-Ed】從心理學角度：為什麼我們會下那些不理性的抉擇？ (The psychology behind irrational decisions - Sara Garofalo)

• 34105 4026
小豬 發佈於 2016 年 11 月 02 日