around the world in 18 minutes.

在這18分鐘裡環遊世界。

My base of operations is in the U.S.,

我研究的基準是在美國。

but let's start at the other end of the map,

不過先讓我們從地圖的另一端，

in Kyoto, Japan,

日本京都開始。

where I was living with a Japanese family

當時我住在京都某個日本家庭裡，

while I was doing part of my dissertational research

為了完成我的學位論文，

15 years ago.

這是15年前的事了。

I knew even then that I would encounter

當時我早有心理準備，

cultural differences and misunderstandings,

覺得我一定會遇到文化的差異與誤解，

but they popped up when I least expected it.

但沒想到我遇到的情況完全超乎我的想像。

On my first day,

在我剛到的第一天，

I went to a restaurant,

去了一家餐廳，

and I ordered a cup of green tea with sugar.

然後我點了一杯綠茶加糖。

After a pause, the waiter said,

過一陣子，服務生過來跟我說

"One does not put sugar in green tea."

"沒有人會在綠茶裡放糖的。"

"I know," I said. "I'm aware of this custom.

"我知道"我回答："我知道日本人不加糖"

But I really like my tea sweet."

"但我真的想要一杯甜甜的茶"。

In response, he gave me an even more courteous version

他表現了一個更客氣的態度

of the same explanation.

並給了同一套說詞：

"One does not put sugar

"真的沒有人會放糖

in green tea."

在綠茶裡面"

"I understand," I said,

"我也真的知道"我回答：

"that the Japanese do not put sugar in their green tea,

"日本人不會在綠茶裡面放糖"

but I'd like to put some sugar

"但是我真的好想"

in my green tea."

"在綠茶裡面放糖"

(Laughter)

(笑)

Surprised by my insistence,

對於我的堅持服務生非常驚訝，

the waiter took up the issue with the manager.

於是他把這個情形告訴了店經理。

Pretty soon,

過沒多久，

a lengthy discussion ensued,

他們開始進行一段長時間的討論，

and finally the manager came over to me and said,

最後店經理走過來跟我說：

"I am very sorry. We do not have sugar."

"真的非常抱歉，我們店內沒有糖"

(Laughter)

(笑)

Well, since I couldn't have my tea the way I wanted it,

恩，既然我沒辦法喝到我想要的茶，

I ordered a cup of coffee,

我另外點了杯咖啡，

which the waiter brought over promptly.

這次服務生很快的端上來了。

Resting on the saucer

在咖啡的茶托上，

were two packets of sugar.

穩穩躺著2包糖。

My failure to procure myself

我沒辦法為自己點到一杯

a cup of sweet, green tea

加糖綠茶

was not due to a simple misunderstanding.

並不只是因為誤解而已。

This was due to a fundamental difference

這是因為在"選擇"的概念上，

in our ideas about choice.

我們有著最根本性的差異。

From my American perspective,

從我美國人的觀點來看，

when a paying customer makes a reasonable request

當一位付費的顧客根據她的偏好

based on her preferences,

提出合理的要求，

she has every right to have that request met.

她就有權利讓自己的要求得到滿足。

The American way, to quote Burger King,

這種美式作風，可以引用漢堡王的標語來表示

is to "have it your way,"

"吃出你自己的方式"，

because, as Starbucks says,

因為，星巴克說過

"happiness is in your choices."

"快樂是自己選的"。

(Laughter)

(笑)

But from the Japanese perspective,

但是從日本人的觀點來看，

it's their duty to protect those who don't know any better --

他們的職責，就是要保護那些不知道什麼是最棒的人。

(Laughter)

(笑)

in this case, the ignorant gaijin --

剛剛的案例中，這個無知的外國人---

from making the wrong choice.

就做了一個錯誤的選擇。

Let's face it: the way I wanted my tea

老實說，按照日本文化標準，

was inappropriate according to cultural standards,

我喝茶的方式是不恰當的，

and they were doing their best to help me save face.

而他們盡力想要幫助我不要丟臉。

Americans tend to believe

但美國人傾向認為

that they've reached some sort of pinnacle

自己所做的都是最棒的，

in the way they practice choice.

並致力於去實踐。

They think that choice, as seen through the American lens

美國人認為透過美國看待事物的觀點，

best fulfills an innate and universal

讓人類所選出的事物，

desire for choice in all humans.

最能滿足先天和普遍的需求。

Unfortunately,

不過很不幸的，

these beliefs are based on assumptions

這些想法是建立在某個假設上，

that don't always hold true

這種假設在其他的國家、其他的文化

in many countries, in many cultures.

是不成立的。

At times they don't even hold true

有時候在美國

at America's own borders.

也不一定成立。

I'd like to discuss some of these assumptions

我想要來談談這些假設，

and the problems associated with them.

還有它們所伴隨來的問題。

As I do so, I hope you'll start thinking

在我說明之時，我希望各位可以開始去思考，

about some of your own assumptions

那些在你腦中的那些假設，

and how they were shaped by your backgrounds.

還有這些假設是如何塑造你的各項經歷。

First assumption:

第一種假設情形：

if a choice affects you,

若有一項選擇與自己息息相關，

then you should be the one to make it.

那這項選擇應該要自己來做。

This is the only way to ensure

這是唯一能讓

that your preferences and interests

你的偏好和興趣

will be most fully accounted for.

得到最大的滿足。

It is essential for success.

這是成功的關鍵。

In America, the primary locus of choice

在美國，做選擇的基準點，

is the individual.

就是以個人為出發點。

People must choose for themselves, sometimes sticking to their guns,

人們必須為自己做選擇，並堅持自己的原則，

regardless of what other people want or recommend.

不管外界的任何聲浪。

It's called "being true to yourself."

這稱為"作真實的自己"。

But do all individuals benefit

但是，是否要完全從自身利益為出發點

from taking such an approach to choice?

來做選擇呢?

Mark Lepper and I did a series of studies

馬克-里柏與我做了一系列的研究，

in which we sought the answer to this very question.

目的就是去探討這問題的答案。

In one study,

其中一項研究，

which we ran in Japantown, San Francisco,

我們在舊金山的日本城執行，

we brought seven- to nine-year-old Anglo- and Asian-American children

我們將7到9歲的英裔美國籍，和亞裔美國籍的兒童

into the laboratory,

帶到實驗室裡，

and we divided them up into three groups.

然後將他們各別分成3組。

The first group came in,

第一組先進到實驗室裡，

and they were greeted by Miss Smith,

實驗室的史密斯小姐接待他們，

who showed them six big piles of anagram puzzles.

並出了6大主題的字謎。

The kids got to choose which pile of anagrams they would like to do,

這些孩子能自由選擇想做的題目。

and they even got to choose which marker

同時他們能自由選擇

they would write their answers with.

要用哪一種馬克筆作答。

When the second group of children came in,

第二組進到實驗室，

they were brought to the same room, shown the same anagrams,

他們被帶進同樣的房間裡，出同樣的題目，

but this time Miss Smith told them

但此時史密斯小姐告訴他們，

which anagrams to do

你想做哪一題

and which markers to write their answers with.

那就得用指定的馬克筆。

Now when the third group came in,

接著第三組進來了，

they were told that their anagrams and their markers

他們被告知該做的字謎、作答用的馬克筆顏色，

had been chosen by their mothers.

他們的媽咪都決定好了。

(Laughter)

（笑）

In reality,

事實上，

the kids who were told what to do,

被告知該如何做的孩子，

whether by Miss Smith or their mothers,

不論是史密斯小姐或是媽咪告知的，

were actually given the very same activity,

他們被告知的內容，

which their counterparts in the first group

都是能自由選擇的第一組

had freely chosen.

所做的選擇結果。

With this procedure, we were able to ensure

在這流程下，我們也確定說

that the kids across the three groups

三個組中的孩子

all did the same activity,

若都有做出同樣的行為，

making it easier for us to compare performance.

我們也能容易的比較出績效。

Such small differences in the way we administered the activity

我們的管理行為稍有不同

yielded striking differences

就能引起

in how well they performed.

行為的大不同。

Anglo-Americans,

英裔美國籍的孩子，

they did two and a half times more anagrams

能自由選擇的人

when they got to choose them,

相較於

as compared to when it was

被史密斯小姐和媽咪指定的人，

chosen for them by Miss Smith or their mothers.

自由選擇的多做了2.5倍的字謎。

It didn't matter who did the choosing,

不論是誰下決定，

if the task was dictated by another,

如果任務已經被別人所控制指引，

their performance suffered.

他們的績效就會受損。

In fact, some of the kids were visibly embarrassed

事實上，有些孩子被告知自己得照媽咪的意思做，

when they were told that their mothers had been consulted.

明顯的會覺得丟臉。

(Laughter)

（笑）

One girl named Mary said,

一位叫瑪麗的孩子說：

"You asked my mother?"

"你真的問了我媽咪？"

(Laughter)

（笑）

In contrast,

相較之下，

Asian-American children

亞裔美國藉的孩子，

performed best when they believed

在被告知他們媽咪已經說該怎麼做的時候，

their mothers had made the choice,

績效是最好的，

second best when they chose for themselves,

第2佳的是他們為自己選的，

and least well when it had been chosen by Miss Smith.

最後一名是史密斯小姐告訴他們的。

A girl named Natsumi

一位叫夏實的小女孩

even approached Miss Smith as she was leaving the room

在史密斯小姐要離開房間時

and tugged on her skirt and asked,

走近她並拉住她的裙子問說：

"Could you please tell my mommy

"你能不能跟我媽咪講說

I did it just like she said?"

我有照她的話乖乖做了?"

The first-generation children were strongly influenced

這些第一代的孩子（first-generation，指父母都為移民的孩子）

by their immigrant parents'

非常容易被移民父母

approach to choice.

所影響。

For them, choice was not just a way

對這些孩子而言，

of defining and asserting

選擇並非只是

their individuality,

展現自我的途徑，

but a way to create community and harmony

而是建立社群與使人相處融洽的過程，

by deferring to the choices

並根據他們所信任和尊敬的人所做的決定

of people whom they trusted and respected.

而有所差異。

If they had a concept of being true to one's self,

一旦他們心裡有這種觀念，

then that self, most likely,

那他們在"自我"的本質上，

[was] composed, not of an individual,

大部分就不是以個人為出發點，

but of a collective.

而是以合作為出發點。

Success was just as much about pleasing key figures

要獲得成就得滿足一些關鍵條件，

as it was about satisfying

像是滿足

one's own preferences.

某些人的偏好。

Or, you could say that

或者，你可以這樣認為，

the individual's preferences were shaped

這些個體心裡偏好的形成，

by the preferences of specific others.

是仰賴一些特定個體的偏好。

The assumption then that we do best

我們做了一個最好的假設，就是

when the individual self chooses

當個體在為自己做選擇時，

only holds

只取決

when that self

自己是不是

is clearly divided from others.

會和其他人清楚的區分開來。

When, in contrast,

相對的，

two or more individuals

當有2個或更多的個體，

see their choices and their outcomes

發現他們的選擇和成果

as intimately connected,

彼此密切相關，

then they may amplify one another's success

透過將個人選擇

by turning choosing

轉化成為集體行動的情形下，

into a collective act.

他們會放大彼此的成就。

To insist that they choose independently

要他們堅持自己的自主選擇，

might actually compromise

就會造成

both their performance

他們在自己的績效和關係上

and their relationships.

做一個妥協。

Yet that is exactly what

這恰恰就是

the American paradigm demands.

美國人最需要的典範行為。

It leaves little room for interdependence

這留給所謂獨立的觀念一些轉圜的空間

or an acknowledgment of individual fallibility.

或是說，他們認知到個人是不可靠的。

It requires that everyone treat choice

這讓每個人在對"選擇"這件事情上

as a private and self-defining act.

成為一種私人的和自我界定的行為。

People that have grown up in such a paradigm

人們會依據某個典範成長，

might find it motivating,

並受到其典範的刺激。

but it is a mistake to assume

第一項假設的錯誤點在於

that everyone thrives under the pressure

假設每個人的成功茁壯

of choosing alone.

都是來自獨自下決定的壓力。

The second assumption which informs the American view of choice

而美國人對選擇的觀點

goes something like this.

的第二項假設，就是

The more choices you have,

你擁有的選擇越多，

the more likely you are

就越有可能

to make the best choice.

做出正確的選擇。

So bring it on, Walmart, with 100,000 different products,

所以沃爾瑪超市裡面有10萬種不同的商品，

and Amazon, with 27 million books

亞馬遜電子書城有2700萬本書，

and Match.com with -- what is it? --

真愛天空交友網站有什麼？

15 million date possibilities now.

現在可能有1500萬筆的交友資料。

You will surely find the perfect match.

你一定可以在上面找到真愛。

Let's test this assumption

讓我們在東歐

by heading over to Eastern Europe.

針對這個假設對點實驗。

Here, I interviewed people

在東歐，我與一些人面談，

who were residents of formerly communist countries,

這些人過去是共產國家的居民，

who had all faced the challenge

曾經面對

of transitioning to a more

民主和資本主義社會

democratic and capitalistic society.

所帶來的過渡期。

One of the most interesting revelations

其中最有趣的啟示不是來自

came not from an answer to a question,

我們面談中的問與答，

but from a simple gesture of hospitality.

而是來自一個款待客人的簡單行為。

When the participants arrived for their interview,

當參與者來到面談地點後，

I offered them a set of drinks:

我會遞上一杯飲料，

Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite --

可樂，無糖可樂，雪碧．．等等

seven, to be exact.

為了周到我準備了7種飲料。

During the very first session,

實驗的第一階段，

which was run in Russia,

是在俄羅斯進行，

one of the participants made a comment

其中一個參與者所講的一句話，

that really caught me off guard.

真的讓我大吃一驚。

"Oh, but it doesn't matter.

他說：”喔，沒差啦，

It's all just soda. That's just one choice."

這些都是蘇打水，對我來說只有一種選擇”。

(Murmuring)

（細語）

I was so struck by this comment that from then on,

我對這句話非常震驚，

I started to offer all the participants

然後我開始提供所有的參與者

those seven sodas,

這7種飲料。

and I asked them, "How many choices are these?"

然後我都會問：”請問這裡有幾種選擇？”

Again and again,

這樣問了一次又一次，

they perceived these seven different sodas,

他們都認為這7種不同的氣泡飲料，

not as seven choices, but as one choice:

對他們而言不是7種選擇，是1種：

soda or no soda.

蘇打飲料，或非蘇打飲料。

When I put out juice and water

如果我在這7種飲料中，

in addition to these seven sodas,

額外再加上果汁和水，

now they perceived it as only three choices --

那他們就會認為現在有3種選擇了--

juice, water and soda.

果汁、水、蘇打水。

Compare this to the die-hard devotion of many Americans,

讓頑固死硬的美國人來分辨，

not just to a particular flavor of soda,

這些飲料可不僅僅只是口味各異的蘇打水，

but to a particular brand.

品牌也完全不同。

You know, research shows repeatedly

反覆研究的結果顯示，

that we can't actually tell the difference

對於可口可樂和百事可樂之間，

between Coke and Pepsi.

事實上我們也沒辦法分辨它們的差異。

Of course, you and I know

當然，對你我而言，

that Coke is the better choice.

可口可樂是第一選擇。

(Laughter)

（笑）

For modern Americans who are exposed

現代的美國人擁有的選項，

to more options and more ads associated with options

還有廣告所帶來的選項，

than anyone else in the world,

比世界上其他任何角落都要多，

choice is just as much about who they are

選擇是為了表達出個性，

as it is about what the product is.

廣告是為了分辨產品的不同。

Combine this with the assumption that more choices are always better,

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，

and you have a group of people for whom every little difference matters

所以你能找到一群人，這些人能針對事物之間的細微差距，

and so every choice matters.

劃分出許多不同的選擇。

But for Eastern Europeans,

但是對東歐人而言，

the sudden availability of all these

意外的得到這些

consumer products on the marketplace was a deluge.

像洪水般氾濫的市場消費品。

They were flooded with choice