Subtitles section Play video
I was recently traveling in the Highlands of New Guinea,
譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: SF Huang
and I was talking with a man who had three wives.
我最近去新幾內亞高地,
I asked him, "How many wives would you like to have?"
跟一位男士談話,他有三個老婆。
And there was this long pause,
我問他:「你想要娶幾個太太?」
and I thought to myself,
在很長的停頓之後,
"Is he going to say five?
我心想:
Is he going to say 10?
「他會說 5 個嗎?
Is he going to say 25?"
還是 10 個?
And he leaned towards me
還是 25 個?」
and he whispered, "None."
結果他靠過來
(Laughter)
小聲對我說:「一個都不想。」
Eighty-six percent of human societies permit a man to have several wives:
(笑聲)
polygyny.
86% 的人類社會 允許男人有好幾位妻子:
But in the vast majority of these cultures,
一夫多妻制。
only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives.
但是,這些文化中的大多數,
Having several partners can be a toothache.
只有 5% 到 10% 的男人 真的有多位妻子。
In fact, co-wives can fight with each other,
有多位伴侶就像牙痛一樣。
sometimes they can even poison each other's children.
事實上,妻妾間會互相爭寵,
And you've got to have a lot of cows, a lot of goats,
有時候還會毒害別人的孩子。
a lot of money, a lot of land,
而且你還得有很多牛、很多羊、
in order to build a harem.
很多錢、很多土地,
We are a pair-bonding species.
才能養得起一個後宮。
Ninety-seven percent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young;
我們是配對型的物種。
human beings do.
97% 哺乳動物的親代 並沒有一起養育後代;
I'm not suggesting that we're not --
人類卻是如此。
that we're necessarily sexually faithful to our partners.
我沒有說我們不...
I've looked at adultery in 42 cultures,
我們性方面一定對伴侶忠實。
I understand some of, actually, the genetics of it,
我研究過 42 個文化中的外遇行為,
and some of the brain circuitry of it.
我其實了解外遇的某些遺傳原因,
It's very common around the world,
還有造成這種行為的大腦迴路。
but we are built to love.
這現象在全球很普遍,
How is technology changing love?
但是我們天生就要愛。
I'm going to say almost not at all.
科技如何改變愛?
I study the brain.
我要說幾乎一點都沒有。
I and my colleagues have put over 100 people into a brain scanner --
我研究腦部。
people who had just fallen happily in love,
我和同事將100多人 放進腦部掃描機中──
people who had just been rejected in love
熱戀中的人,
and people who are in love long-term.
剛剛失戀的人,
And it is possible to remain "in love" long-term.
和談了長久戀愛的人。
And I've long ago maintained
人長時間一直維持戀愛的感覺 的確是有可能的。
that we've evolved three distinctly different brain systems
我很久前就主張,
for mating and reproduction:
人類在交配和繁衍的過程中,
sex drive,
演化出三種迥然不同的腦部系統:
feelings of intense romantic love
性慾、
and feelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner.
強烈又浪漫的愛、
And together, these three brain systems --
及對長期伴侶深深無盡的愛慕之情。
with many other parts of the brain --
把這三個腦部系統加在一起,
orchestrate our sexual, our romantic and our family lives.
再加上腦部的其它部分,
But they lie way below the cortex,
譜出我們浪漫的性、愛與家庭生活。
way below the limbic system where we feel our emotions,
但這三者深藏在皮質之下,
generate our emotions.
遠在我們感受情緒、產生感情的
They lie in the most primitive parts of the brain, linked with energy,
邊緣系統之下。
focus, craving, motivation, wanting and drive.
它們藏在大腦最原始的地方,
In this case,
與能量、專注、渴望、動機、 需求及慾望等連結在一起。
the drive to win life's greatest prize:
以這個例子來說,
a mating partner.
就是渴望贏得生命中最大獎賞:
They evolved over 4.4 million years ago among our first ancestors,
一名交配的伴侶。
and they're not going to change if you swipe left or right on Tinder.
我們的始祖在這方面的演化 已經超過 440 萬年,
(Laughter)
就算你在交友軟體 Tinder 左右滑動頁面,也不能改變。
(Applause)
(笑聲)
There's no question that technology is changing the way we court:
(掌聲)
emailing, texting,
毫無疑問科技會改變 我們求愛的方式:
emojis to express your emotions,
寫電郵、傳簡訊、
sexting,
用表情符號表達情感、
"liking" a photograph, selfies ...
發性愛簡訊、
We're seeing new rules and taboos for how to court.
讚一張照片或是自拍等等。
But, you know --
我們看見求愛招術 有了新規則及新禁忌。
is this actually dramatically changing love?
但是,你知道...
What about the late 1940s,
這真的大幅改變了愛嗎?
when the automobile became very popular
那你怎麼看在 1940 年代晚期,
and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms?
車子變得非常流行,
(Laughter)
我們突然有了車床族這回事?
How about the introduction of the birth control pill?
(笑聲)
Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin,
那避孕藥的問世又怎麼說?
women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality.
婦女從害怕意外懷孕 而名聲敗壞的威脅中解放出來,
Even dating sites are not changing love.
終於可以表達非常自然原始的性慾。
I'm Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com,
甚至約會網站,也沒有改變愛。
I've been it for 11 years.
我是約會網站 Match.com 的 首席科學顧問。
I keep telling them and they agree with me,
我已經當了 11 年。
that these are not dating sites,
我一直跟他們說,他們也同意,
they are introducing sites.
這不是約會網站。
When you sit down in a bar,
這應該是介紹網站。
in a coffee house,
當你坐在酒吧裡,
on a park bench,
咖啡廳裡,
your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened,
甚至坐在公園的長椅上,
and you smile
你古老的大腦馬上進入活動狀態, 就像一隻突然甦醒的貓,
and laugh
你微笑,
and listen
談笑風生,
and parade the way our ancestors did 100,000 years ago.
傾聽,
We can give you various people --
而且走路有風, 就像10萬年前的祖先一樣。
all the dating sites can --
我們可以提供各式各樣的人,
but the only real algorithm is your own human brain.
所有的約會網站都可以,
Technology is not going to change that.
但是,真正且唯一在盤算的 其實是你自己的大腦。
Technology is also not going to change who you choose to love.
科技不會改變這件事。
I study the biology of personality,
科技不會改變你決定愛誰。
and I've come to believe
我研究個性生物學,
that we've evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving,
我開始相信,
linked with the dopamine, serotonin,
我們已發展出四種 非常顯著的思維和行為方式,
testosterone and estrogen systems.
跟多巴胺、血清素
So I created a questionnaire directly from brain science
睪固酮及雌激素連在一起。
to measure the degree to which you express the traits --
所以,我從腦科學的角度 去設計了一份問卷,
the constellation of traits --
來測量你表達特質的程度──
linked with each of these four brain systems.
各種特質──
I then put that questionnaire on various dating sites
與這四種腦部系統的關聯。
in 40 countries.
然後我把這份問卷放到
Fourteen million or more people have now taken the questionnaire,
40 個國家的各個約會網站上。
and I've been able to watch who's naturally drawn to whom.
超過 1400 萬人填過這份問卷,
And as it turns out,
我能藉此觀察哪些人 會自然而然地相互吸引。
those who were very expressive of the dopamine system
結果是,
tend to be curious, creative, spontaneous, energetic --
多巴胺系統很強的人
I would imagine there's an awful lot of people like that in this room --
比較有好奇心、有創意、 自動自發、有活力──
they're drawn to people like themselves.
我可以想像在座 有很多像這樣的人──
Curious, creative people need people like themselves.
因為這種人,同類相吸。
People who are very expressive of the serotonin system
有好奇心及創意的人 需要跟同類的人在一起。
tend to be traditional, conventional, they follow the rules,
血清素系統很強的人
they respect authority,
比較傳統、保守,他們遵循規定,
they tend to be religious -- religiosity is in the serotonin system --
他們尊重權威,
and traditional people go for traditional people.
他們也比較虔誠── 宗教性就在血清素系統內──
In that way, similarity attracts.
而且傳統的人也喜歡傳統的人。
In the other two cases, opposites attract.
也就是說,同類相吸。
People very expressive of the testosterone system
另外兩個情況,則是異性相吸。
tend to be analytical, logical, direct, decisive,
睪固酮系統表現強的人
and they go for their opposite:
比較重分析、重邏輯、直接、果斷,
they go for somebody who's high estrogen,
而且他們喜歡相反特質的人:
somebody who's got very good verbal skills
他們喜歡雌激素高的人,
and people skills,
語言能力非常強
who's very intuitive
及很會處理人際關係的人,
and who's very nurturing and emotionally expressive.
直覺性強的人,
We have natural patterns of mate choice.
以及很會照顧人、會表達情緒的人。
Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love.
我們生來就具有擇偶的自然模式。
But technology is producing one modern trend
現代科技不會改變 我們決定去愛誰。
that I find particularly important.
但是科技的確創造了一種現代趨勢,
It's associated with the concept of paradox of choice.
我認為特別重要。
For millions of years,
它與選擇的悖論這個觀念有關。
we lived in little hunting and gathering groups.
有百萬年之久,
You didn't have the opportunity to choose
人類是生活在狩獵 及採集的小團體內。
between 1,000 people on a dating site.
那時的人沒有機會
In fact, I've been studying this recently,
像我們一樣在約會網站中, 有上千個對象可選擇。
and I actually think there's some sort of sweet spot in the brain;
事實上,我最近就在研究這個,
I don't know what it is, but apparently, from reading a lot of the data,
我真的相信腦部的運作, 有所謂的「最佳選擇」;
we can embrace about five to nine alternatives, and after that,
我還不知道它是什麼,但很明顯, 在看了一大堆資料之後,
you get into what academics call "cognitive overload,"
我們大約能接受5~9個選項, 超過這個數字之後,
and you don't choose any.
就會出現學術界稱為 「認知超載」的問題,
So I've come to think that due to this cognitive overload,
然後就變成什麼都不選。
we're ushering in a new form of courtship
所以我認為,因為認知超載,
that I call "slow love."
我們開闢了一種新的求愛法,
I arrived at this during my work with Match.com.
我稱為「慢愛」。
Every year for the last six years,
我在 Match.com 的工作 讓我得到這個結論。
we've done a study called "Singles in America."
過去六年來,
We don't poll the Match population,
每年我們都會做一項 「單身美國人」的研究。
we poll the American population.
我們不對 Match 族群做民調,
We use 5,000-plus people,
我們對所有美國人做民調。
a representative sample of Americans based on the US census.
我們選出5千多人,
We've got data now on over 30,000 people,
從美國人口普查中 選出具代表性的樣本。
and every single year,
我們現在有超過3萬人的資料,
I see some of the same patterns.
而且每一年,
Every single year when I ask the question,
我都會看到同樣的模式。
over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand --
每一年提問所得的結果是:
not necessarily last year, but in their lives --
超過 50% 的人有過一夜情,
50 percent have had a friends with benefits
不一定是在去年, 而是一生中是否曾有過;
during the course of their lives,
50% 的人曾經有過炮友;
and over 50 percent have lived with a person long-term
超過 50% 的人在婚前 有長期同居的經驗。
before marrying.
美國人認為這太亂來了。
Americans think that this is reckless.
我對此結果也一直存疑。
I have doubted that for a long time;
但是,模式非常明顯。
the patterns are too strong.
這裡面一定有什麼達爾文式的解釋。
There's got to be some Darwinian explanation --
沒有那麼多瘋狂的人!
Not that many people are crazy.
我搞糊塗了,然後,一份統計 終於讓我明白這是怎麼回事。
And I stumbled, then, on a statistic that really came home to me.
那是一份非常有意思的學術文章,
It was a very interesting academic article
我在裡面發現, 今天美國有 67% 的單身者,
in which I found that 67 percent of singles in America today
與某人長期同居卻還不結婚,
who are living long-term with somebody,
因為他們害怕離婚。
have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce.
他們怕離婚後要承擔的社會、
They're terrified of the social,
法律、情感、
legal, emotional,
及經濟後果。
economic consequences of divorce.
我終於明白,我不認為這是亂來,
So I came to realize that I don't think this is recklessness;
我認為這是謹慎。
I think it's caution.
現今,單身者想在婚前 了解伴侶的一切。
Today's singles want to know every single thing about a partner
在床笫之間,你會看到很多,
before they wed.
不僅是做愛的方式,
You learn a lot between the sheets,
還有他們是否體貼,
not only about how somebody makes love,
是否會聆聽,
but whether they're kind,
而且到了我這個年紀,
whether they can listen
還要看他們是否有幽默感。
and at my age,
(笑聲)
whether they've got a sense of humor.
在有太多選擇的時代,
(Laughter)
我們不太擔心懷孕和疾病,
And in an age where we have too many choices,
對婚前性行為也沒有羞恥感,
we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease
我認為人們用自己的步調來慢愛。
and we've got no feeling of shame for sex before marriage,
而且其實,現在的狀況是,
I think people are taking their time to love.
我們看到是互結連理前的
And actually, what's happening is,
預備承諾階段,被拉長了。
what we're seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage
婚姻過去一向是一段關係的開始,
before you tie the knot.
現在則變成一段關係的終點。
Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship,
但是,人的腦
now it's the finale.
(笑聲)
But the human brain --
人的腦總是贏家,
(Laughter)
確實,今天的美國
The human brain always triumphs,
86% 的美國人會在 49 歲前結婚。
and indeed, in the United States today,
即使在世界各地 結婚不那麼頻繁的文化中,
86 percent of Americans will marry by age 49.
他們最終也會與一位 長期伴侶定下來。
And even in cultures around the world where they're not marrying as often,
所以這讓我想到:
they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner.
在這段拉長的預備承諾階段,
So it began to occur to me:
如果你能在婚前 甩掉一段不好的關係,
during this long extension of the precommitment stage,
可能我們就會看到比較快樂的婚姻。
if you can get rid of bad relationships before you marry,
所以,我研究了 1100 對美國夫婦,
maybe we're going to see more happy marriages.
當然不是在 Match.com 上做,
So I did a study of 1,100 married people in America --
我問他們很多問題。
not on Match.com, of course --
其中一個問題是,
and I asked them a lot of questions.
你會與你現在的配偶再結一次婚嗎?
But one of the questions was,
81% 的人說會。
"Would you re-marry the person you're currently married to?"
事實上,現代愛情 與家庭生活最大的改變
And 81 percent said, "Yes."
不在科技。
In fact, the greatest change in modern romance and family life
甚至也不是慢愛。
is not technology.
其實是女人湧入就業市場,
It's not even slow love.
在全球各文化皆是。
It's actually women piling into the job market
幾百萬年來,
in cultures around the world.
我們的祖先生活在 採集狩獵的小團體裡。
For millions of years,
女人通勤到工作場所 去採集水果蔬菜。
our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups.
她們回家時帶著六到八成的晚餐。
Women commuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables.
雙薪家庭很平常。
They came home with 60 to 80 percent of the evening meal.
女人無論是在經濟、社會
The double-income family was the rule.
或性方面都與男性一樣強大。
And women were regarded as just as economically, socially
然後環境在約一萬年前改變了,
and sexually powerful as men.
我們開始定居下來務農,
Then the environment changed some 10,000 years ago,
男女兩性變得都有責任,真的,
we began to settle down on the farm
要娶或嫁對人,
and both men and women became obliged, really,
要背景相當,
to marry the right person,
要有對的信仰,
from the right background,
要門當戶對, 要有同樣的社會及政治圈。
from the right religion
男人的工作變得更重要:
and from the right kin and social and political connections.
他們必須搬石頭、砍樹、犁田。
Men's jobs became more important:
他們把農產品拿去市場賣,
they had to move the rocks, fell the trees, plow the land.
回家時帶回等值的金錢。
They brought the produce to local markets, and came home
隨之而來的是
with the equivalent of money.
我們看到一些信念興起:
Along with this,
婚姻守貞,
we see a rise of a host of beliefs:
媒妁之言── 非常嚴格的父母指定婚約──
the belief of virginity at marriage,
以及男人是一家之主,
arranged marriages -- strictly arranged marriages --
女人要主內,
the belief that the man is the head of the household,
還有最重要的,
that the wife's place is in the home
要榮耀丈夫,至死不渝。
and most important,
這些都沒了。
honor thy husband, and 'til death do us part.
這些都漸漸消失了,
These are gone.
而且在很多地方, 這些已成為過去式。
They are going, and in many places,
我們現在正處於婚姻革命中。
they are gone.
我們正在擺脫過去 一萬年來的傳統農業家庭,
We are right now in a marriage revolution.
朝著兩性平權邁進──
We are shedding 10,000 years of our farming tradition
而我認為這與古人的精神非常相符。
and moving forward towards egalitarian relationships between the sexes --
我不是什麼樂天派的人;
something I regard as highly compatible with the ancient human spirit.
還是有很多要大聲疾呼的地方。
I'm not a Pollyanna;
我研究 80 種文化中的離婚,
there's a great deal to cry about.
我剛剛也說了我也研究通姦──
I've studied divorce in 80 cultures,
這裡有一大堆問題。
I've studied, as I say, adultery in many --
就像詩人葉慈曾說的:
there's a whole pile of problems.
「愛情是狡猾的東西。」
As William Butler Yeats, the poet, once said,
我還要加上: 「沒有人能活著出來!」
"Love is the crooked thing."
(笑聲)
I would add, "Nobody gets out alive."
我們都有自己的問題。
(Laughter)
但事實上,我認為 詩人藍道‧傑瑞形容得最傳神。
We all have problems.
他說:「家庭生活中的枯索紛擾,
But in fact, I think the poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best.
會使強者技窮,謙者得勝。」
He said, "The dark, uneasy world of family life --
在結束前我想留給大家這個:
where the greatest can fail, and the humblest succeed."
愛情與戀慕會得勝,
But I will leave you with this:
科技無法改變它。
love and attachment will prevail,
我的總結就是
technology cannot change it.
想要了解任何一種人際關係,
And I will conclude by saying
一定要把人類行為中 最有力的決定因素考慮進去:
any understanding of human relationships must take into account
就是那抑制不住、
one the most powerful determinants of human behavior:
具適應性、
the unquenchable,
及最原始的人類渴望:愛。
adaptable
謝謝。
and primordial human drive to love.
(掌聲)
Thank you.
凱莉:謝謝妳的演講,海倫。
(Applause)
這裡還有另一位講者,
Kelly Stoetzel: Thank you so much for that, Helen.
跟妳研究相同的領域。
As you know, there's another speaker here with us
她從不同的觀點來看這件事。
that works in your same field.
精神治療師埃絲特.沛瑞爾 專門處理夫婦關係。
She comes at it from a different perspective.
妳研究數據資料,
Esther Perel is a psychotherapist who works with couples.
埃斯特則研究
You study data,
夫婦在尋求協談幫助時 告訴她的故事。
Esther studies the stories the couples tell her
歡迎她上台。
when they come to her for help.
埃斯特?
Let's have her join us on the stage.
(掌聲)
Esther?
埃斯特,
(Applause)
妳在聽海倫的演講時,
So Esther,
有任何與妳工作經驗所獲的心得
when you were watching Helen's talk,
互相契合的部分嗎?
was there any part of it
妳可以談一下嗎?
that resonated with you through the lens of your own work
埃斯特:非常有意思,因為一方面
that you'd like to comment on?
對愛的需求,無所不在, 放諸天下皆準。
Esther Perel: It's interesting, because on the one hand,
但是我們愛的方法──
the need for love is ubiquitous and universal.
愛的意義──
But the way we love --
支配我們關係的規則,我認為
the meaning we make out of it --
正在從根本改變。
the rules that govern our relationships, I think,
直到今天為止,我們的模式
are changing fundamentally.
主要在規範責任和義務,
We come from a model that, until now,
著重在集體的需求及忠誠。
was primarily regulated around duty and obligation,
而我們已經轉變到另一種模式,
the needs of the collective and loyalty.
有自由選擇及個人權利、
And we have shifted it
自我實現及幸福。
to a model of free choice and individual rights,
所以,我第一個想到的就是
and self-fulfillment and happiness.
需求本身不會改變,
And so, that was the first thing I thought,
但是其環境背景 及我們規範關係的方式
that the need doesn't change,
則有很大的改變。
but the context and the way we regulate these relationships
選擇的悖論
changes a lot.
你們都知道,我們一方面津津樂道於
On the paradox of choice --
新奇與好玩,
you know, on the one hand we relish the novelty
可以有這麼多選擇。
and the playfulness, I think,
但是同時,
to be able to have so many options.
妳又談到認知超載,
And at the same time,
我看過很多很多人,
as you talk about this cognitive overload,
因為有太多的選擇,
I see many, many people who ...
而引起的不確定感與缺乏自信,
who dread the uncertainty and self-doubt
進而產生所謂的社交控,
that comes with this massa of choice,
使我們──
creating a case of "FOMO"
社交控,又稱錯失恐懼症, 怕錯過任何機會──
and then leading us --
就像:「我怎麼知道我已經 找到真命天子(女)?
FOMO, fear of missed opportunity, or fear of missing out --
命中註定那個對的人選呢?」
it's like, "How do I know I have found 'the one' --
所以,我們創造出我稱之為 「穩態曖昧」的一種東西。
the right one?"
「穩態曖昧」就是你既太害怕獨處,
So we've created what I call this thing of "stable ambiguity."
但又不願意與人建立起親密關係。
Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to be alone
這是一套策略,
but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building.
盡可能地拉長一段似有若無的關係。
It's a set of tactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship
所以,在網路上你可以看到 三種主要的手法。
but also the uncertainty of the breakup.
一種就是似冰或像溫火慢燉的關係,
So, here on the internet you have three major ones.
這真是一種絕妙的拖延戰術,
One is icing and simmering,
給你一種維持關係的模式,
which are great stalling tactics
既強調一段關係的未定性,
that offer a kind of holding pattern
又同時給你足夠的安逸穩定感,
that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship
及足夠的自由 在不明確的界線上遊走。
but at the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency
(笑聲)
and enough freedom of the undefined boundaries.
對吧?
(Laughter)
然後又有所謂幽靈。
Yeah?
幽靈基本上就是
And then comes ghosting.
你咻一聲就人間蒸發,
And ghosting is, basically,
你不用去處理 你加諸在別人身上的痛苦,
you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot,
因為你完全神隱,連自己都看不到!
and you don't have to deal with the pain that you inflict on another,
(笑聲)
because you're making it invisible even to yourself.
對吧?
(Laughter)
所以我在想──這些名詞 在我聽妳演講時跑出來,
Yeah?
創造出栩栩如生的畫面,
So I was thinking -- these words came up for me as I was listening to you,
而且同時,
like how a vocabulary also creates a reality,
這是我想問妳的問題:
and at the same time,
你是否認為在環境背景改變之後,
that's my question to you:
愛的本質仍然不變?
Do you think when the context changes,
你研究大腦, 而我研究人的關係及故事,
it still means that the nature of love remains the same?
所以我想...的確就像你說的, 還不止。
You study the brain and I study people's relationships and stories,
但是我不太明白, 環境背景改變的程度...
so I think it's everything you say, plus.
它是在某個時間點開始改變──
But I don't always know the degree to which a changing context ...
如果意義改變了, 需求會不會因此改變,
Does it at some point begin to change --
或是說需求跟整體環境背景 一點關係都沒有?
If the meaning changes, does it change the need,
海倫:哇,這...
or is the need clear of the entire context?
(笑聲)
HF: Wow! Well --
(掌聲)
(Laughter)
哇,三點對吧?
(Applause)
首先,回答你的第一個問題:
Well, I've got three points here, right?
毫無疑問我們已經改變了, 我們現在想要去愛一個人,
First of all, to your first one:
數千年來,我們都得跟對的人結婚,
there's no question that we've changed, that we now want a person to love,
要門當戶對。
and for thousands of years, we had to marry the right person
事實上,在我每年五千人的研究中,
from the right background and right kin connection.
我問他們:「你在找什麼樣的人?」
And in fact, in my studies of 5,000 people every year,
每一年,超過 97% 的人都說
I ask them, "What are you looking for?"
埃:清單變長了?
And every single year, over 97 percent say --
海:喔,沒有。
EP: The list grows --
基本上,就是超過 97% 的人
HF: Well, no.
都想要會尊重他們的人,
The basic thing is over 97 percent of people
值得信任、傾訴的人,
want somebody that respects them,
會逗他們笑的人,
somebody they can trust and confide in,
特別為他們空出時間的人,
somebody who makes them laugh,
還有,外表具吸引力的人。
somebody who makes enough time for them
這些從未改變。
and somebody who they find physically attractive.
當然你知道,有兩部分...
That never changes.
埃:你知道我怎麼稱它嗎?
And there's certainly -- you know, there's two parts --
過去大家的回答,不是這樣的。
EP: But you know how I call that?
海:沒錯。
That's not what people used to say --
埃:他們說想要一個能陪伴他們、
HF: That's exactly right.
能提供經濟支持及喜歡小孩的人。
EP: They said they wanted somebody with whom they have companionship,
我們從生產經濟變成服務經濟。
economic support, children.
(笑聲)
We went from a production economy to a service economy.
過去大範圍的文化是這樣, 現在婚姻也變這樣了。
(Laughter)
海:沒錯,毫無疑問。
We did it in the larger culture, and we're doing it in marriage.
但是很有意思, 千禧世代很想當個好父母,
HF: Right, no question about it.
而他們的上一代想的 卻是如何有個好婚姻,
But it's interesting, the millennials actually want to be very good parents,
不是那麼著重在如何當個好父母。
whereas the generation above them wants to have a very fine marriage
你看到這些細微的不同處。
but is not as focused on being a good parent.
個性有兩個基本部分:
You see all of these nuances.
一是你的文化,你成長中所做的、 所相信的、所說的──
There's two basic parts of personality:
還有就是你的氣質。
there's your culture -- everything you grew up to do and believe and say --
基本上,我今天講的都是你的氣質。
and there's your temperament.
那個氣質一定會隨著
Basically, what I've been talking about is your temperament.
時間及看法而改變。
And that temperament is certainly going to change with changing times
至於選擇的悖論,
and changing beliefs.
毫無疑問,這的確是個難題。
And in terms of the paradox of choice,
幾百萬年來一直都是 你看到一個好男孩
there's no question about it that this is a pickle.
在水塘的另一邊,
There were millions of years where you found that sweet boy
你就去了。
at the other side of the water hole,
埃:是啊,但你...
and you went for it.
海:我還想說一件事。
EP: Yes, but you --
基本就是,在狩獵採集的社會,
HF: I do want to say one more thing.
他們一生中往往有2~3位伴侶。
The bottom line is, in hunting and gathering societies,
他們沒那麼死板!
they tended to have two or three partners during the course of their lives.
我不是說我們也要這麼做,
They weren't square!
但基本就是,我們總是有選擇的。
And I'm not suggesting that we do,
人類總是...
but the bottom line is, we've always had alternatives.
事實上, 大腦在平衡的基礎上,
Mankind is always --
去做嘗試與選擇:
in fact, the brain is well-built to what we call "equilibrate,"
我要來嗎?我要留嗎? 我要去嗎?我要留嗎?
to try and decide:
這裡有什麼機會?
Do I come, do I stay? Do I go, do I stay?
我要怎麼處理這個?
What are the opportunities here?
所以我想這部分也要漸漸消失了。
How do I handle this there?
很好,謝謝兩位。
And so I think we're seeing another play-out of that now.
我想你們今晚會有百萬名飯友了!
KS: Well, thank you both so much.
(掌聲)
I think you're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight!
謝謝妳,謝謝!
(Applause)
Thank you, thank you.