Why did you buy the latest iPhone?

為什麼你要買最新出的 iPhone？

Why did you pick your current partner?

為什麼你會選上你現在的伴侶？

And why did so many people vote for Donald Trump?

為什麼有那麼多人投給川普？

What were the reasons, why did they do it?

理由是什麼？為什麼他們會這樣做？

So we ask this kind of question all the time,

我們總是在問這類的問題，

and we expect to get an answer.

且我們期望能得到答案。

And when being asked, we expect ourselves to know the answer,

當被問的，時候，我們也 期望我們自己知道答案，

to simply tell why we did as we did.

很簡單地說出我們 所做所為背後的理由。

But do we really know why?

但我們真的知道為什麼嗎？

So when you say that you prefer George Clooney to Tom Hanks,

所以，當你說，你喜歡 喬治克隆尼多於湯姆漢克，

due to his concern for the environment,

是因為他對環境比較關心，

is that really true?

真的是這樣嗎？

So you can be perfectly sincere and genuinely believe

這麼一來，你就可以 非常真誠且真正相信

that this is the reason that drives your choice,

這就是驅使你做出 這個選擇的背後理由，

but to me, it may still feel like something is missing.

但對我而言，還是覺得少了什麼。

As it stands, due to the nature of subjectivity,

在目前的條件下， 因為主觀性的本質，

it is actually very hard to ever prove that people are wrong about themselves.

其實非常難去證明人們 對自己的看法是錯的。

So I'm an experimental psychologist,

我是一名實驗心理學家，

and this is the problem we've been trying to solve in our lab.

這是我們在實驗室中 一直想解決的問題。

So we wanted to create an experiment

我們想要創造出一種實驗，

that would allow us to challenge what people say about themselves,

讓我們來挑戰人們對自己的說詞，

regardless of how certain they may seem.

不論他們看起來有多肯定。

But tricking people about their own mind is hard.

但要欺騙一個人關於 他自己大腦的事，是很困難的。

So we turned to the professionals.

所以我們轉向專業人士求助。

The magicians.

魔術師。

So they're experts at creating the illusion of a free choice.

他們的專業就是創造出 有自由選擇權的幻覺。

So when they say, "Pick a card, any card,"

當他們說：「挑一張牌， 任何一張牌。」

the only thing you know is that your choice is no longer free.

你唯一能知道的就是， 你的選擇已不是自由的。

So we had a few fantastic brainstorming sessions

我們和一群瑞典的魔術師進行了

with a group of Swedish magicians,

幾次很棒的腦力激盪，

and they helped us create a method

他們協助我們創造了

in which we would be able to manipulate the outcome of people's choices.

一種方式，讓我們能 操控別人的選擇結果

This way we would know when people are wrong about themselves,

這樣，當人們對自己的看法 有誤時，我們就會知道，

even if they don't know this themselves.

即使他們自己都不知道。

So I will now show you a short movie showing this manipulation.

我現在要播放一段影片， 說明這種操控要如何進行。

So it's quite simple.

它相當簡單。

The participants make a choice,

受試者要做一個選擇，

but I end up giving them the opposite.

但我卻會給他們沒有選的那一個。

And then we want to see: How did they react, and what did they say?

接著，我們想看看： 他們會如何反應、會說什麼？

So it's quite simple, but see if you can spot the magic going on.

所以它很簡單，但試試 你能否看到有魔術在發生。

And this was shot with real participants, they don't know what's going on.

這是在拍攝真實的受試者， 他們不知道會發生什麼事。

(Video) Petter Johansson: Hi, my name's Petter.

（影片）佩特強納森： 嗨，我是佩特。

Woman: Hi, I'm Becka.

女子：嗨，我是貝卡。

PJ: I'm going to show you pictures like this.

佩特：我會給你看像這樣的照片。

And you'll have to decide which one you find more attractive.

你得要決定，你覺得 哪一張比較吸引人。。

Becka: OK.

貝卡：好。

PJ: And then sometimes, I will ask you why you prefer that face.

佩特：有時，我會問你， 你為什麼偏好那張臉

Becka: OK.

貝卡：好。

PJ: Ready? Becka: Yeah.

佩特：準備好了？ 貝卡：好了。

PJ: Why did you prefer that one?

佩特：你為什麼比較喜歡那張臉？

Becka: The smile, I think.

貝卡：我想，是微笑。

PJ: Smile.

佩特：微笑。

Man: One on the left.

男子：左邊的。

Again, this one just struck me.

一樣，這張照片有觸到我的點。

Interesting shot.

有趣的拍攝鏡頭。

Since I'm a photographer, I like the way it's lit and looks.

我是個攝影師，我喜歡它 打燈和看起來的感覺。

Petter Johansson: But now comes the trick.

佩特：但，現在來看一下騙局。

(Video) Woman 1: This one.

（影片）女子 1：這張。

PJ: So they get the opposite of their choice.

佩特：他們拿到的照片 是他們沒選的那張。

And let's see what happens.

咱們來瞧瞧會發生什麼事。。

Woman 2: Um ...

女子 2：呃…

I think he seems a little more innocent than the other guy.

我覺得他看起來比另一個人無辜些。

Man: The one on the left.

男子：左邊的。

I like her smile and contour of the nose and face.

我喜歡她的微笑， 還有鼻子和臉頰的輪廓。

So it's a little more interesting to me, and her haircut.

所以我覺得這張比較有趣， 還有她的髮型。

Woman 3: This one.

女子 3：這張。

I like the smirky look better.

我比較喜歡嘻嘻笑的外表。

PJ: You like the smirky look better?

佩特：你比較喜歡嘻嘻笑的外表？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Woman 3: This one.

女子 3：這張。

PJ: What made you choose him?

佩特：你為什麼選他？

Woman 3: I don't know, he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.

女子 3：我不知道， 他看起來有點像哈比人。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

PJ: And what happens in the end

佩特：在實驗結束時，

when I tell them the true nature of the experiment?

當我告訴他們這個實驗 真正在做什麼，會如何？

Yeah, that's it. I just have to ask a few questions.

是的，就這樣。 我只需要問幾個問題。

Man: Sure.

男子：沒問題。

PJ: What did you think of this experiment, was it easy or hard?

佩特：你覺得這個實驗如何， 容易或困難？

Man: It was easy.

男子：容易。

PJ: During the experiments,

佩特：在實驗過程中，

I actually switched the pictures three times.

我其實把照片偷換了三次。

Was this anything you noticed?

我其實把照片偷換了三次。

Man: No. I didn't notice any of that.

男子：沒有，我沒注意到。

PJ: Not at all? Man: No.

佩特：完全沒有？ 男子：沒有。

Switching the pictures as far as ...

換照片的意思是……

PJ: Yeah, you were pointing at one of them but I actually gave you the opposite.

佩特：是的，你指著其中一張照片， 但我其實給你的是另一張

Man: The opposite one. OK, when you --

男子：另一張。好，當你──

No. Shows you how much my attention span was.

不。這展現我的注意力持續多長。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

PJ: Did you notice that sometimes during the experiment

（笑聲）

I switched the pictures?

我有時偷換了照片？

Woman 2: No, I did not notice that.

女子 2：沒有，我沒注意到。

PJ: You were pointing at one, but then I gave you the other one.

佩特：你指著這一張照片時， 我接著會給你另一張。

No inclination of that happening?

不知道有發生這件事？

Woman 2: No.

女子 2：不知道。

Woman 2: I did not notice.

女子 2：我沒注意到。

(Laughs)

（笑聲）

PJ: Thank you.

佩特：謝謝你。

Woman 2: Thank you.

女子 2：謝謝你。

PJ: OK, so as you probably figured out now,

（現場）佩特：好， 所以現在你們可能已經想通，

the trick is that I have two cards in each hand,

技倆在於我每隻手上有兩張牌，

and when I hand one of them over,

當我把上面的牌移過去時，

the black one kind of disappears into the black surface on the table.

因為桌子表面是黑的，所以 下面黑色的那張就像消失了一樣。

So using pictures like this,

用像這樣的照片，

normally not more than 20 percent of the participants detect these tries.

通常不到 20% 的 受試者會發現有詐。

And as you saw in the movie,

如同在影片中看到的，

when in the end we explain what's going on,

在最後我們會解釋發生了什麼事，

they're very surprised and often refuse to believe the trick has been made.

他們會很驚訝，通常會拒絕 相信我有使用這個技倆。

So this shows that this effect is quite robust and a genuine effect.

這表示，這種效應是 相當可靠且真實的效應。

But if you're interested in self-knowledge, as I am,

但，如果你和我一樣， 對「自我知識」感興趣

the more interesting bit is,

更有趣的部分是，，

OK, so what did they say when they explained these choices?

當他們在解釋他們的選擇時， 他們說了什麼？

So we've done a lot of analysis

我們做了很多分析，

of the verbal reports in these experiments.

分析這些實驗中的口頭報告。

And this graph simply shows

這張圖顯示的是

that if you compare what they say in a manipulated trial

如果你把他們在有詐的 那幾回當中的說詞，

with a nonmanipulated trial,

拿來和沒詐的那幾回做比較，

that is when they explain a normal choice they've made

也就是他們解釋正常選擇時的說詞，

and one where we manipulated the outcome,

和我們在選擇結果動手腳之後 他們的說詞做比較，

we find that they are remarkably similar.

我們發現，說詞是非常像的。

So they are just as emotional, just as specific,

這些說詞都一樣情緒化、一樣明確，

and they are expressed with the same level of certainty.

而且是用相同的肯定度說出來的。

So the strong conclusion to draw from this

這實驗能導出一個強力的結論，

is that if there are no differences

如果在真正的選擇

between a real choice and a manipulated choice,

和被操控的選擇之間沒有差異的話，

perhaps we make things up all the time.

也許我們隨時隨地都是在編理由。

But we've also done studies

但我們也有做些研究，

where we try to match what they say with the actual faces.

試著把他們的說詞 和真實面孔來匹配。

And then we find things like this.

我們的發現是這樣的。

So here, this male participant, he preferred the girl to the left,

這裡，這位男性受試者 偏好左邊的女子，

he ended up with the one to the right.

但他拿到的是右邊的照片。

And then, he explained his choice like this.

接著，他是這樣解釋他的選擇。

"She is radiant.

「她容光煥發。

I would rather have approached her at the bar than the other one.

在酒吧，我會比較想 接近她而不是其他人。

And I like earrings."

且我喜歡她的耳環。」

And whatever made him choose the girl on the left to begin with,

不論一開始他是 為什麼選左邊的女子，

it can't have been the earrings,

絕對不會是因為耳環，

because they were actually sitting on the girl on the right.

因為其實只有右邊的女子才有耳環

So this is a clear example of a post hoc construction.

這是個很清楚的例子， 說明了「事後建構」。

So they just explained the choice afterwards.

他們是在事後才解釋他們的選擇。

So what this experiment shows is,

這個實驗所顯示的是，

OK, so if we fail to detect that our choices have been changed,

如果我們沒能發現 我們的選擇被掉包了，

we will immediately start to explain them in another way.

我們會馬上用另一種方式 來解釋我們的選擇。

And what we also found

我們也發現，

is that the participants often come to prefer the alternative,

受試者會漸漸喜歡上另一個選擇，

that they were led to believe they liked.

他們被誤導以為 自己喜歡的那個選擇。

So if we let them do the choice again,

如果我們再讓他們選一次，

they will now choose the face they had previously rejected.

他們現在會選的， 是他們先前沒選的那個。

So this is the effect we call "choice blindness."

個效應是所謂的「選擇盲目」。

And we've done a number of different studies --

我們做了許多不同的研究──

we've tried consumer choices,

我們試過消費者選擇，

choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.

依據味覺和嗅覺做的選擇， 甚至試過推理問題。

But what you all want to know is of course

但，當然，你們都想知道的是，

does this extend also to more complex, more meaningful choices?

這個現象也會延伸到更複雜、 更有意義的選擇上嗎？

Like those concerning moral and political issues.

比如和道德以及政治有關的選擇？

So the next experiment, it needs a little bit of a background.

接下來的實驗需要一點點背景說明。

So in Sweden, the political landscape

在瑞典，政治的狀況是

is dominated by a left-wing and a right-wing coalition.

由左翼和右翼組的聯合政府在主導。

And the voters may move a little bit between the parties within each coalition,

投票人可能會在每個聯盟中的 兩黨之間有一點點猶疑，

but there is very little movement between the coalitions.

但對不同聯盟之間的選擇 就幾乎不會猶疑。

And before each elections,

在每次大選之前，

the newspapers and the polling institutes

報紙和民意調查機構

put together what they call "an election compass"

會做出所謂的「選舉羅盤」，

which consists of a number of dividing issues

它包含了數個很有區分性的議題，

that sort of separates the two coalitions.

那些議題可以把兩個聯盟給區別開。

Things like if tax on gasoline should be increased

比如，汽油稅應該要提高，

or if the 13 months of paid parental leave

或是十三個月的育嬰假是否應該

should be split equally between the two parents

應該平等分給父親和母親，

in order to increase gender equality.

來改善性別平權。

So, before the last Swedish election,

所以，在上次瑞典大選之前，

we created an election compass of our own.

我們做了我們自己的選舉羅盤

So we walked up to people in the street

我們到街上找人，

and asked if they wanted to do a quick political survey.

問他們是否願意做個 快速的政治調查。

So first we had them state their voting intention

首先，我們請他們說出他們傾向於

between the two coalitions.

投票給兩個聯盟中的哪一個。

Then we asked them to answer 12 of these questions.

接著我們請他們回答 十二個這樣的問題。

They would fill in their answers,

他們會填寫他們的答案，

and we would ask them to discuss,

接著我們會請他們討論，

so OK, why do you think tax on gas should be increased?

好，那你為什麼認為 汽油稅應該要提高？

And we'd go through the questions.

我們把問題都問完。

Then we had a color coded template

接著，我們有個用顏色編碼的樣板，

that would allow us to tally their overall score.

讓我們能計算他們的總分數。

So this person would have one, two, three, four

這個人會有一、二、三、四、

five, six, seven, eight, nine scores to the left,

五、六、七、八、九分都是靠左的，

so he would lean to the left, basically.

所以，基本上，他傾向左翼。

And in the end, we also had them fill in their voting intention once more.

最後，我們會再次請他們 填寫他們的投票傾向。

But of course, there was also a trick involved.

當然，我們耍了個小技倆。。

So first, we walked up to people,

首先，我們走向路人，

we asked them about their voting intention

我們問他們的投票傾向，

and then when they started filling in,

接著，當他們開始填寫時，

we would fill in a set of answers going in the opposite direction.

我們會填寫一組相反的答案。

We would put it under the notepad.

我們把這張紙放在筆記本的下方。

And when we get the questionnaire,

當我們拿到問卷時，

we would simply glue it on top of the participant's own answer.

我們就把它黏在受測者的答案上面。

So there, it's gone.

就這樣，它不見了。

And then we would ask about each of the questions:

接著，我們會針對 每個問題再問他們：

How did you reason here?

你在這題的理由是什麼？

And they'll state the reasons,

他們會說明理由，

together we will sum up their overall score.

我們會一起把總分加起來。

And in the end, they will state their voting intention again.

最終，他們會再次陳述 他們的投票傾向。

So what we find first of all here,

首先，我們發現的是，

is that very few of these manipulations are detected.

很少有人察覺到我們的技倆。

And they're not detected in the sense that they realize,

意思是說，他們並沒有發現：

"OK, you must have changed my answer,"

「你一定有偷改我的答案。」

it was more the case that,

通常比較會是：

"OK, I must've misunderstood the question the first time I read it.

「我一定是在第一次讀 問題時誤解了它的意思。

Can I please change it?"

我能改正嗎？」

And even if a few of these manipulations were changed,

即使有少數我們操控的部分被改了，

the overall majority was missed.

總的來說大部分都還是被忽視了。

So we managed to switch 90 percent of the participants' answers

所以受試者的答案有 90% 都被我們成功偷換掉了，

from left to right, right to left, their overall profile.

整體的側寫上， 左翼換到右翼，右翼換到左翼。

And what happens then when they are asked to motivate their choices?

當他們被問及為什麼要做 這個選擇時，會發生什麼事？

And here we find much more interesting verbal reports

在這裡，我們得到的口頭報告，

than compared to the faces.

比之前面孔比較時的更有意思許多。

People say things like this, and I'll read it to you.

人們會這樣回答，讓我讀給你們聽。

So, "Large-scale governmental surveillance of email and internet traffic

「對電子郵件及網路流量的 大規模政府監控

ought to be permissible as means to combat international crime and terrorism."

應該要被允許，做為對抗 國際犯罪和恐怖主義的手段。」

"So you agree to some extent with this statement." "Yes."

「所以，你對這段陳述 算是認同。」「是的。」

"So how did you reason here?"

「你的理由是什麼？」

"Well, like, as it is so hard to get at international crime and terrorism,

「嗯，因為國際犯罪 和恐怖主義很難處理，

I think there should be those kinds of tools."

我認為應該要有這類的工具。」

And then the person remembers an argument from the newspaper in the morning.

接著，這個人記起 在早報上的一段論述。

"Like in the newspaper today,

「就像今天的報紙寫的，

it said they can like, listen to mobile phones from prison,

它說，他們能夠聽到 從監獄打的行動電話，

if a gang leader tries to continue his crimes from inside.

如果幫派首領試圖從監獄內 繼續他的犯罪就會被發現。

And I think it's madness that we have so little power

而我認為，如果我們沒有什麼力量

that we can't stop those things

能阻止這類事情，那就太瘋狂了，

when we actually have the possibility to do so."

因為我們其實是有可能做到的。」