学习笔记|XA0 |0420|你真的知道你行为背后的动机吗(3)

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

主题为【学道会】活动，点击了解详情

我会不定期在主题帖里记录我的学习内容（主要为网易公开课和TED，有兴趣的坛友可以跟帖和我一起学习）
有效回帖会有论坛币奖励哦! (注意：与主题内容相关的跟帖笔记才是有效跟帖）

可以跟帖的内容，比如：

1-主题学习内容的关键词句摘录
2-与主题学习内容相关的学后感或总结
3-手抄主题学习内容照片上传

4-与主题学习内容相关的任何能让你有收获的学习方式

手抄上传照片形式最为鼓励，会得到最高额奖励

Do you really know why you do what you do?
Experimental psychologist Petter Johansson researches choice blindness -- a phenomenon where we convince ourselves that we're getting what we want, even when we're not. In an eye-opening talk, he shares experiments (designed in collaboration with magicians!) that aim to answer the question: Why do we do what we do? The findings have big implications for the nature of self-knowledge and how we react in the face of manipulation. You may not know yourself as well as you think you do.

But we've also done studies where we try to match what they say with the actual faces.

但是我们也做过研究，尝试将实际的面容与和他们的描述相匹配。
And then we find things like this.
然后我们发现了这样的事情。
So here, this male participant, he preferred the girl to the left, he ended up with the one tothe right.
这个男性参与者，他偏好左面的女人，但结果他却是选的右边的那位。
And then, he explained his choice like this.
然后，他给出的解释是：
"She is radiant. I would rather have approached her at the bar than the other one. And I likeearrings."
“她明艳动人，我宁可在酒吧碰到是她而不是另外一位。并且我喜欢这耳环。”
And whatever made him choose the girl on the left to begin with, it can't have been theearrings,
但开始不管是什么理由让他选择了左边的女人，耳环肯定不是其中一个，
because they were actually sitting on the girl on the right.
因为，右边的女人才戴耳环。

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

这明显是一个“事后构建”的例子。
So they just explained the choice afterwards.
因此，他们只是后来才对作出的选择进行解释。
So what this experiment shows is, OK, so if we fail to detect that our choices have beenchanged,
那么这个实验表明，如果我们没有发现自己的选择被调换了，
we will immediately start to explain them in another way.
我们会立即开始用另外一种方式来解释。
And what we also found is that the participants often come to prefer the alternative,
我们还发现参与者会渐渐喜欢上另外那个，
that they were led to believe they liked.
他们被引导，从而相信那就是他们喜欢的。
So if we let them do the choice again, they will now choose the face they had previouslyrejected.
如果我们再让他们做出一次选择，他们就会选择曾经被他们拒绝掉的那个。
So this is the effect we call "choice blindness."
这就是我们所说的“选择盲目性”效应。
And we've done a number of different studies
并且我们做了很多不同的研究，
we've tried consumer choices, choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
我们在消费者选择上做过实验，建立在味觉和嗅觉上的实验，甚至还有推理问题。
But what you all want to know is of course does this extend also to more complex, moremeaningful choices?
但你们都想知道的是，这个现象能否适用于更复杂，更有意义的选择上呢？
Like those concerning moral and political issues.
比如那些关注于道德和政治的问题。

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

为您点赞！

点赞

感谢的分享，向您学习，赞！

赞！

So if we let them do the choice again, they will now choose the face they had previouslyrejected.
如果我们再让他们做出一次选择，他们就会选择曾经被他们拒绝掉的那个。
So this is the effect we call "choice blindness."
这就是我们所说的“选择盲目性”效应。
And we've done a number of different studies
并且我们做了很多不同的研究，
we've tried consumer choices, choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
我们在消费者选择上做过实验，建立在味觉和嗅觉上的实验，甚至还有推理问题。

we've tried consumer choices, choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
我们在消费者选择上做过实验，建立在味觉和嗅觉上的实验，甚至还有推理问题。
But what you all want to know is of course does this extend also to more complex, moremeaningful choices?
但你们都想知道的是，这个现象能否适用于更复杂，更有意义的选择上呢？
Like those concerning moral and political issues.
比如那些关注于道德和政治的问题。