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

相对二十一分钟的演讲来说， 两百万年显得非常漫长。 但是从进化的角度来看，两百万年只是一瞬间。 在两百万年中， 大脑脑容量从我们祖先能人的1.25磅， 增大了近三倍成了现在的3磅。 自然给予我们的大脑有什么特别之处呢？

00:41

当我们的脑量扩大三倍的时候， 大脑不仅仅在体积上有了改变，它在结构上也发生了变化。 我们大脑变大的最大原因就是它有了新的一部分，叫做 额叶。其中尤为重要的是前额叶外皮。 是什么让前额叶外皮成 人脑中如此重要的一部分？

01:05

脑前额叶外皮有很多功能， 其中最重要的是 它拥有一种创造模拟经验的功能。 飞行员利用在飞行模拟器中的训练 来防止在真实飞行中产生失误。 人类有惊人的适应性， 他们可以在大脑中体验 未曾真实经历的东西。 这个技巧是我们的祖先们都不会的， 也没有任何动物会。 这种适应性真不可思议！ 这一特征和对生拇指，直立行走以及语言 使我们从树上 进化到了购物中心。

01:46

现在-（笑声）-我们大家都能做这些。 我的意思是，比如 Ben and Jerry's (一个冰激凌连锁店）没有肝和洋葱口味的冰激淋。 并不是因为他们试做了一下，尝了尝，而后“Yuck” （表示恶心）。 而是因为你坐在椅子上 就可以想象肝和洋葱的口味的冰激淋是怎样恶心了。

02:04

让我们来看看经验模拟器是如何工作的。 在我继续我的演说之前让我们来做一个简短的试验。 这里有两个不同的未来，我想邀请你们一起来参与。 你可以幻想这两种未来，看看你更喜欢哪一种。 第一种未来是赢了价值3.14亿美元的彩票。 第二种是截瘫。 我给你们几分钟考虑一下。 你也许觉得根本不用考虑。

02:35

这里有一些很有趣的数据。这些数据显示了这两组人 到底有多快乐。 是不是这正如你们所料？ 可其实这是我胡诌的数据。

02:47

这才是真正的数据。你们都没有通过突击测试。这堂课开始还不到5分钟呢。 事实是，在失去双腿一年之后， 和在赢了彩票一年之后，中彩票的人和截瘫患者 的快乐程度几乎相同。

03:03

现在，不要为没有通过突击测试而沮丧了。 因为几乎没有人能通过这项突击测试。 我实验室所做的研究， 还有全国的经济学家和心理学家所做的研究 显示了一种让人吃惊的东西。 我们称它为影响偏差。 这是指人脑的模拟功能有犯错误的倾向。 模拟器会夸大事物的不同结果 而这些结果实际上未必有多么的不同。

03:31

现场研究和实验室研究都显示 选举的输赢，伴侣的得失， 提升与否，考试成败等等， 对我们的影响及影响的时间长短 都比人们想象的少。 事实上，最新的研究几乎让我都迷惑了。 最新的研究显示，发生在三个月以前的 重大的创伤， 除了少数个别例子 对你今日的快乐几乎没有影响。

04:05

这是为什么？ 因为快乐是可以人工合成的。 托马斯·布朗在1642年写到：“我是世界上最快乐的人。 我可以将贫穷变为富有，将逆境变为顺境。 我比阿奇里斯（Achilles）更无懈可击，我用不着幸运的眷顾。” 是什么力量让他如此强大？

04:30

这种力量是我们每个人都有。 人类具有一种心理免疫系统。 这个系统通是一个认知过程，基本上是无意识的认知过程， 这种认知可以改变人们对世界的认识， 让人们感到自己的生活美好。 像托马斯爵士一样，你也具有这样的能力。 与托马斯爵士不同的是，你还没有意识到你有这种能力。

05:00

我们都可以自己制造快乐，尽管我们一直以为快乐是一种需要苦苦追寻的东西。 现在，我想你不用我举太多人们自己合成快乐的例子， 不过我还是想给你们看一下一些实验证据， 你并不用太费劲地寻求证据。

05:17

我上课时说过要自我挑战， 因此我随便拿了一份纽约时报，试着从中寻找人们人工合成快乐的例子。 这里有三个例子。 “我现在在心理上，经济上，感情上和精神上各方面都比以前好。” “我没有一分钟后悔过。” “这个经历太荣耀了。”“我相信事情向最好的方向发展。”

05:36

谁如此快乐？ 第一位是吉姆·莱特（Jim Wright)。 年纪大一点的人可能记得：他是众议院主席。 因为一个名叫牛特·金瑞奇（Newt Gingrich）的年轻共和党党员 发现了他的一桩黑幕交易事件， 莱特被迫辞职。 他失去了一切。这个在美国最有权的民主党党员 失去了一切。 他失去了金钱，权利。 这么多年后，他是怎么看待这些的？“我现在在心理上，经济上，感情上和精神上等 各方面都比以前好。” 最好还能好成怎样？ 植物上?矿物上？动物上？他基本上都包括了。

06:10

你可能从来没有听说过莫里斯·比克汉（Moreese Bickham)。 莫里斯·比克汉出狱后说了这样的话。 他七十八岁了。 他因为一项错误的判决在路易斯安那监狱坐了三十七年牢。 他最终在七十八岁时通过了DNA测验确认无罪才被释放。 他是这样描绘他的这些经历的呢？ “我从来没有一分钟后悔。这个经历太荣耀了。” 荣耀！这个人不是在说： “监狱里有些人还是不错的。那里还有一个健身房。” 他说的是“荣耀！” 我们通常专门用这个词语来形容跟宗教相关的经历。

06:39

哈里·朗格曼(Harry S Langerman）说了这些。他本可以成为一个家喻户晓的人物。 在1949年，他在报上看到一篇 关于麦当劳兄弟拥有的一家汉堡小摊的报道。 他立马想到“这是一个好主意！” 他找到了麦当劳兄弟。他们同意道： “给我们$3000， 我们就让你开连锁店。” 哈里回到纽约，向他在投行工作的哥哥 借$3000。 他哥哥劝慰道： “你真是一个傻瓜。没人会吃汉堡的。” 他没有借到钱。 6个月之后，瑞·克罗克（Ray Croc）也有了同样的想法。 结果是人们喜欢吃汉堡， 瑞·克罗克一时成为巨富。

07:16

最后， 你们也许会认出年轻的比特·贝斯特（Pete Best), 他是甲壳虫乐队早期的一位鼓手。 他们借故丢下了他，让林格(Ringo)入伙。 1994年比特·贝斯特接受采访的时候， -是的，他还是一名鼓手；是的，他还是一名音乐家 -- 他说到：“要是留在甲壳虫乐队，我不会这么快乐。”

07:39

好了。我们可以从这些人身上学到很重要的东西。 那是快乐的秘诀。 让我们总结一下。 一：积聚财富，权利和威望， 然后失去这些东西。（笑声） 二：把牢底坐穿。 （笑声）三：让他人成为巨富。（笑声） 最后：千万别加入甲壳虫乐队。（笑声）

08:04

我像泽.法兰克（Ze Frank）一样可以猜想到你会想什么。 你们在想“哦，是吧。” 因为当人们像以上例举的人一样去合成快乐时， 我们会冲他们微笑，同时会转动着眼睛说： “哦，是吧。你从来没有真正想要那份工作。”“哦，是的，你本来就 和她没有什么共同点， 你知道这点时，她也差不多要 把订婚戒指取下来扔给你。”

08:30

我们假笑是因为我们相信合成的快乐 比不上天然的快乐。 什么是天然的快乐和人工合成的快乐？ 天然的快乐是得到我们渴求的东西。 人工合成的快乐则是在得不到我们渴求的东西时，自己制造出来的东西。 现在这个社会坚信 人工合成的快乐是次品。 为什么人们有这样的观点？ 那很简单。 如果我们都相信得到或得不到自己想要的东西都能一样快乐， 那经济引擎还如何高速运转？

09:06

先让我向马修·理查德（Matthieu Ricard）表示歉意， 要是光顾商场的都是和尚， 那么这些商场岂不是都不赚钱了？ 因为和尚通常都没有什么物质需求。 我想告诉你们的是，人工合成的快乐 是真实而持久的。 它和那种因为得到我们渴求的东西 而感受到的快乐一样。 我是一个科学家。我不光是说一些好听的结论， 我还要向你们提供一些数据。

09:34

第一个试验证据 显示了普通人的人工合成的快乐。 这不是我的试验。 这个50年前做的实验叫做自由选择。 它很简单。 你有6件物品。 你让受试者把这6件物品按照他们的喜爱程度排序。 在这个实验中 我们用6幅莫奈的画。每个人都把画 按照他们最喜欢的到最不喜欢的排列。 现在我们给你一个选择。 “我们正好有一些多余的画。 我们将把画作为奖品给你。 我们正好有三号和四号画。” 这个选择有点困难， 因为受试者对两幅画的喜爱程度相当。 很自然，人们都倾向于选择三号。 因为他们更喜欢三号。

10:23

过了一段时间之后 - 这可能是15分钟，也可能是15天。 对同样的画， 我们叫受试者对同样的画再一次排序。“告诉我们你现在有多喜欢这些画了？” 结果怎样？快乐被人工合成了。 我们反复进行了同样的实验。 你看到快乐被合成了吧！ 你还想看一下吗？快乐！ “我有的这张比我预想的还要好。 我得不到的那张，其实不怎么样。”（笑声）这就是人工合成的快乐。

10:52

现在你怎么想呢？“哦，是吧！” 这是我们做的实验。 我希望这个实验能够让你相信 “哦，是吗！”不是正确的答案。

11:05

我们跟患有健忘症的病人 做了同样的实验。这些都是住院病人。 大多数人都患有柯萨可夫（korsakoff）综合征， 这是一种由于饮酒过度而造成的多发神经炎精神症。 患者记不住新发生的事情。 明白吗？他们能记得他们的童年，但是如果你自我介绍， 然后离开房间， 当你很快回到他们身边时，他们不会记得你是谁。

11:27

我们把莫奈的画拿到医院去。 让病人们来对他们 按照喜爱的程度排序。 然后我们让他们选择三号或者四号画。像很多人一样，他们说： “哇，真太好了! 谢谢你。 我有一幅新的画了。 我要三号。” 我们解释说，我们会把三号邮寄给他们。 然后我们收起东西，离开了病人的房间。 半个小时后， 我们回去：“嘿，我们回来了。” 病人们说：“啊，医生，非常抱歉， 我有一点记忆的毛病，所以才住院的。 如果我们见过面，我恐怕不能记得了。”“哦，是吗，吉姆，你不记得了？我刚刚带了几幅莫奈的画到这儿来的。” “对不起，医生，我真的不记得了。”“没关系，吉姆。我只是想让你把这些画 按照你喜爱的程度排序。”

12:21

他们怎么做了？先让我们确认 他们是真的患有健忘症。我们 让这些病人告诉我们他们有哪幅画， 他们上次选了哪幅画，哪幅是他们的。 我们发现健忘症病人纯粹在猜。 如果是正常对照者，如果我这样问你 你们都记得你选择了那幅画。 但是这些健忘症病人， 他们一点都不记得了。他们不能从一堆画中选出我送他们的那张。

12:48

这是一般人做的：他们人工合成快乐。 是吧？这是喜爱程度的变化。 第一次排序到第二次排序的变化。 平常人的数据显示 这正是我要向你们展示的‘魔法’ 现在我们用图形来显示这个变化。 “我有的比我想的还好。我没拥有的， 其实并不怎么样。” 健忘症病人也做了同样的事。想想这个结果。

13:14

这些病人更喜欢他们有的， 虽然他们并不知道自己拥有这个。 “哦，真的吗？”-你对此表示不屑？ 当人们合成快乐时， 他们真正的，真实的 从感情上和审美角度上改变了对那幅画的看法。 他们这么说不仅仅是因为他们拥有这幅画， 他们其实并不记得自己有那幅画。

13:43

现在，当心理学家给你们看这些图形， 你知道他们是在显示平均数据。 我们大家都有这个心理免疫系统， 和人工合成快乐的能力。 但是我们中的一些人比另外一些人对这样的窍门掌握的更好。 同时，人们的心理免疫系统在某些特定环境下能 比在其他情况下运行的更有效。 自由， 决断力和改变决定的能力 是帮助我们获得天然快乐的朋友。它能让你 从各种可能情况中选择你最喜欢的那种。 但是自由选择 决断力和改变决定的能力-是人工合成快乐的敌人。 我来解释这是为什么。

14:29

当然，呆伯特(Dilbert)已经知道了。 你一边看卡通，一边听我说。 “Dogbert技术支持中心。我该怎么说你？” “我的打印机在每个文件打印完毕后都会出一张白纸。” “你为什么要抱怨得到免费的纸呢？” “免费的？这本来就是我的纸啊？” “哎，老兄，看看这些免费的纸的质量和 那些普通的纸！ 只有傻子和骗子才会说它们是一样的。”“啊！在你说了之后，这些纸看上去是要光滑一些。” “你在干什么？” “我在帮助这些人接受他们不能改变的现实。”的确是这样。

14:55

心理免疫系统在 我们没有其他选择时最有效。 这就是约会和婚姻的区别，是吧？ 你出去和一个男人约会， 他扣扣鼻孔，你就不会跟他在约会了。 如果你们结婚了，他扣扣鼻孔。 嗯， 他有金子一般的心。 别动那个水果蛋糕。是吧？（笑声） 你自我开导，满于现状。 现在我告诉你， 如果人们不了解自己， 不知道他们有这个心理免疫系统，他们可能做一些很错误的决定。

15:26

这是我们在哈佛大学做的一个实验。 我们开设了黑白摄影课程。 学生们来学习如何使用暗室。 我们给他们相机。他们在校园中采景。 每人能拍12张照片。他们拍了他们最喜欢的教授，寝室，他们的狗等等。 任何留给他们哈佛回忆的东西，都可以拍。 然后他们把相机给我们。我们做了一个胶片印出的小样。 他们选出最好的两张。 然后我们用了6个小时教他们如何使用暗室。 他们自己把两张照片映出来。 他们有了两张极有纪念意义的8*10的照片。我们问 “哪一张你不要？” 他们问：“我不能两张都要吗？” “噢，不能。我们需要一张来留底。 因此你必须放弃一张。你一定要做一个决定。 你留一张，我留一张。”

16:10

现在，这个实验又分为两种。 第一种情况，学生们被告知，“你知道， 如果你改变了主意，另外一张还在我这里。 我要四天以后才把这些照片寄到总部去。 我很乐意。是的，“总部”。 我很乐意跟你换。事实上， 我会把照片送到你的寝室来换， 只要发电邮给我就行了。或者我会联系你。 只要你改变了主意，我们可以换照片。” 其他的学生被告知的正好相反： “选一张照片。顺便说一下， 另外一张照片马上就要寄到英国去。 你的照片要漂洋过海。 你再也见不到它了。” 然后， 我们让每组中一半的学生 来预测 他们对留下的照片 和送走的照片的喜爱程度会如何。 其他的学生回到他们的寝室。 我们测量了在后来的三到六天之中， 他们对照片的喜爱和满意程度。 看看我们发现了什么。

17:09

首先，这里是学生们觉得事情会怎样。 他们想他们可能会更喜欢他们选择的照片， 而不是留给我们的那一张。但是这算不上是统计上的显著差异。 差异很小， 能不能换照片影响并不大。

17:28

错啦！这一次模拟器工作得很不好！实际上， 在交换以前和5天后， 那些没有交换权， 不能选择, 不能更改决定的学生，非常喜欢他们的照片。 另外的学生则在深思熟虑。“我应该换照片吗? 我选了好的那张吗？也许这张并不好？ 交给老师的那张或许更好？”这些问题简直折磨人。 他们不喜欢他们的照片。事实上， 甚至在交换期结束后， 他们还是不喜欢自己的照片。为什么？ 因为可逆转的选择不利于 人工合成的快乐。

18:06

这里是这个实验的最后一部分。 我们找了新的一批天真的哈佛学生。 我们告诉他们：“我们将开设摄影课程，我们有两种方案。 一是你拍两张照片， 然后有四天来选择保留哪张照片。 另外一种是你拍摄两张照片， 然后当机立断做选择。 一但做了选择，你就不能更改。你愿意选择那种方式？ ”啊! 66%的学生，差不多三分之二 更愿意加入那个可以改变选择的。 喂！66%的学生选择了那个让他们 最终将非常不满意照片的方案。 因为他们不知道在什么条件下，人工合成快乐有效。

18:52

莎士比亚说的正好反映了我的看法。 他说的有点夸张。 “事无善恶.思想使然。” 这是美丽的诗句，但是并不一定全对。 事真的无善恶之分吗？ 胆囊手术真的和到巴黎旅行 一样吗？这听上去想一个IQ测试题。 他们并不完全一样。

19:21

现代资本主义之父，亚当·斯密(Adam Smith)， 用浮华却更贴近事实的语言 阐述如下。 这是值得思考的。 “人生中的悲剧与无序之源， 似乎皆来源于人们 过高地评估某种时局， 诚然，某些时局确实值得人们追求， 但是，不管这种追求有多大的合理性， 我们都不可因这种痴情的追求而打破 谨慎、公正的法则，亦不可破坏我们未来的心境。 因为假如我们真的那么做，我们必有一天会忆及当日的愚昧， 或者是因为自己曾经的偏私而感到后悔。”用另一句话说：没错，生活中确实存在某些事物比别的事物更有价值，

20:12

我们确实应该追求价值更高的东西。 但是，假如我们过分看重不同选择之间的差异， 因而拼命的追求我们想要的东西时， 我们就可能面临危险。 当我们的追求不是无节制的时候，我们可以生活的快乐。 当我们的追求不受节制的时候，我们会生活得很痛苦，甚至会去欺诈，偷窃，伤害他人， 更甚至是牺牲真正有价值的东西。当我们畏惧受控制时， 我们会行事谨慎、三思而后行。 当我们的畏惧失去节制并无限膨胀的时候， 我们会变得鲁莽大意，或者胆小如鼠。

20:51

最后用一句话来概括我们从这些数据中学到的东西： 我们每个人的期望与担忧在一定程度上都被夸大了， 通过选择感受，我们自己可以生产出 我们所不懈追求的那样东西。

21:09

谢谢。