×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.


image

TED, Laurie Santos: A monkey economy as irrational as ours

Laurie Santos: A monkey economy as irrational as ours

I want to start my talk today with two observations about the human species.The first observation is something that you might think is quite obvious, and that's that our species, Homo sapiens, is actually really, really smart --like, ridiculously smart --like you're all doing things that no other species on the planet does right now And this is, of course, not the first time you've probably recognized this.

Of course, in addition to being smart, we're also an extremely vain species. So we like pointing out the fact that we're smart.You know, so I could turn to pretty much any sage from Shakespeare to Stephen Colbert to point out things like the fact that we're noble in reason and infinite in faculties and just kind of awesome-er than anything else on the planet when it comes to all things cerebral.

0:54 But of course, there's a second observation about the human species that I want to focus on a little bit more, and that's the fact that even though we're actually really smart, sometimes uniquely smart, we can also be incredibly, incredibly dumb when it comes to some aspects of our decision making.

Now I'm seeing lots of smirks out there. Don't worry, I'm not going to call anyone in particular out on any aspects of your own mistakes. But of course, just in the last two years we see these unprecedented examples of human ineptitude. And we've watched as the tools we uniquely make to pull the resources out of our environment kind of just blow up in our face. We've watched the financial markets that we uniquely create --these markets that were supposed to be fool proof --we've watched them kind of collapse before our eyes.

1:34 But both of these two embarrassing examples, I think, don't highlight what I think is most embarrassing about the mistakes that humans make, which is that we'd like to think that the mistakes we make are really just the result of a couple bad apples or a couple really sort of FAIL Blog-worthy decisions.

But it turns out, what social scientists are actually learning is that most of us, when put in certain contexts, will actually make very specific mistakes. The errors we make are actually predictable. We make them again and again. And they're actually immune to lots of evidence. When we get negative feedback, we still, the next time we're face with a certain context, tend to make the same errors. And so this has been a real puzzle to me as a sort of scholar of human nature. What I'm most curious about is, how is a species that's as smart as we are capable of such bad and such consistent errors all the time?

2:24 You know, we're the smartest thing out there, why can't we figure this out?

In some sense, where do our mistakes really come from? And having thought about this a little bit, I see a couple different possibilities. One possibility is, in some sense, it's not really our fault. Because we're a smart species, we can actually create all kinds of environments that are super, super complicated, sometimes too complicated for us to even actually understand, even though we've actually created them. We create financial markets that are super complex. We create mortgage terms that we can't actually deal with. And of course, if we are put in environments where we can't deal with it, in some sense makes sense that we actually might mess certain things up. If this was the case, we'd have a really easy solution to the problem of human error. We'd actually just say, okay, let's figure out the kinds of technologies we can't deal with, the kinds of environments that are bad -- get rid of those, design things better, and we should be the noble species that we expect ourselves to be.

3:15 But there's another possibility that I find a little bit more worrying, which is, maybe it's not our environments that are messed up.

Maybe it's actually us that's designed badly. This is a hint that I've gotten from watching the ways that social scientists have learned about human errors. And what we see is that people tend to keep making errors exactly the same way, over and over again. It feels like we might almost just be built to make errors in certain ways.This is a possibility that I worry a little bit more about, because, if it's us that's messed up, it's not actually clear how we go about dealing with it. We might just have to accept the fact that we're error prone and try to design things around it.

3:51 So this is the question my students and I wanted to get at.

How can we tell the difference between possibility one and possibility two? What we need is a population that's basically smart, can make lots of decisions, but doesn't have access to any of the systems we have, any of the things that might mess us up --no human technology, human culture, maybe even not human language. And so this is why we turned to these guys here.These are one of the guys I work with. This is a brown capuchin monkey. These guys are New World primates, which means they broke off from the human branch about 35 million years ago.This means that your great, great, great great, great, great --with about five million "greats" in there --grandmother was probably the same great, great, great, great grandmother with five million "greats" in there as Holly up here.You know, so you can take comfort in the fact that this guy up here is a really really distant, but albeit evolutionary, relative.The good news about Holly though is that she doesn't actually have the same kinds of technologies we do.You know, she's a smart, very cut creature, a primate as well, but she lacks all the stuff we think might be messing us up. So she's the perfect test case.

4:47 What if we put Holly into the same context as humans?

Does she make the same mistakes as us? Does she not learn from them? And so on. And so this is the kind of thing we decided to do. My students and I got very excited about this a few years ago. We said, all right, let's, you know, throw so problems at Holly, see if she messes these things up. First problem is just, well, where should we start? Because, you know, it's great for us, but bad for humans.We make a lot of mistakes in a lot of different contexts. You know, where are we actually going to start with this? And because we started this work around the time of the financial collapse, around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news, we said, hhmm, maybe we should actually start in the financial domain. Maybe we should look at monkey's economic decisions and try to see if they do the same kinds of dumb things that we do.

5:26 Of course, that's when we hit a sort second problem --a little bit more methodological --which is that, maybe you guys don't know, but monkeys don't actually use money.

I know, you haven't met them. But this is why, you know, they're not in the queue behind you at the grocery store or the ATM -- you know, they don't do this stuff. So now we faced, you know, a little bit of a problem here. How are we actually going to ask monkeys about money if they don't actually use it? So we said, well, maybe we should just, actually just suck it up and teach monkeys how to use money. So that's just what we did. What you're looking at over here is actually the first unit that I know of of non-human currency. We weren't very creative at the time we started these studies, so we just called it a token. But this is the unit of currency that we've taught our monkeys at Yale to actually use with humans, to actually buy different pieces of food.It doesn't look like much -- in fact, it isn't like much.

6:12 Like most of our money, it's just a piece of metal.As those of you who've taken currencies home from your trip know, once you get home, it's actually pretty useless.

It was useless to the monkeys at first before they realized what they could do with it. When we first gave it to them in their enclosures, they actually kind of picked them up, looked at them.They were these kind of weird things. But very quickly, the monkeys realized that they could actually hand these tokens over to different humans in the lab for some food. And so you see one of our monkeys, Mayday, up here doing this.This is A and B are kind of the points where she's sort of a little bit curious about these things -- doesn't know. There's this waiting hand from a human experimenter, and Mayday quickly figures out, apparently the human wants this. Hands it over, and then gets some food. It turns out not just Mayday, all of our monkeys get good at trading tokens with human salesman. So here's just a quick video of what this looks like. Here's Mayday. She's going to be trading a token for some food and waiting happily and getting her food. Here's Felix, I think. He's our alpha male; he's a kind of big guy.But he too waits patiently, gets his food and goes on.

7:07 So the monkeys get really good at this.They're surprisingly good at this with very little training.

We just allowed them to pick this up on their own.The question is: is this anything like human money? Is this a market at all, or did we just do a weird psychologist's trick by getting monkeys to do something, looking smart, but not really being smart. And so we said, well, what would the monkeys spontaneously do if this was really their currency, if they were really using it like money? Well, you might actually imagine them to do all the kinds of smart things that humans do when they start exchanging money with each other. You might have them start paying attention to price,paying attention to how much they buy --sort of keeping track of their monkey token, as it were.Do the monkeys do anything like this?

7:47 And so our monkey marketplace was born.The way this works is that our monkeys normally live in a kind of big zoo social enclosure.

When they get a hankering for some treats, we actually allowed them a way out into a little smaller enclosure where they could enter the market. Upon entering the market --it was actually a much more fun market for the monkeys than most human markets because, as the monkeys entered the door of the market, a human would give them a big wallet full of tokens so they could actually trade the tokens with one of these two guys here --two different possible human salesmen that they could actually buy stuff from.The salesmen were students from my lab.They dressed differently; they were different people. And over time, they did basically the same thing so the monkeys could learn, you know, who sold what at what price -- you know, who was reliable, who wasn't, and so on. And you can see that each of the experimenters is actually holding up a little, yellow food dish and that's what the monkey can get for a single token. So everything costs one token, but as you can see, sometimes tokens buy more than others, sometimes more grapes than others.

8:43 So I'll show you a quick video of what this marketplace actually looks like.Here's a monkey-eye-view.

Monkeys are shorter, so it's a little short.But here's Honey.She's waiting for the market to open a little impatiently.All of a sudden the market opens. Here's her choice: one grapes or two grapes.You can see Honey, very good market economist,goes with the guy who gives more.She could teach our financial advisers a few things or two.So not just Honey,most of the monkeys went with guys who had more.Most of the monkeys went with guys who had better food.When we introduced sales, we saw the monkeys paid attention to that.They really cared about their monkey token dollar.The more surprising thing was that when we collaborated with economists to actually look at the monkeys' data using economic tools, they basically matched, not just qualitatively, but quantitatively with what we saw humans doing in a real market.So much so that, if you saw the monkeys' numbers,you couldn't tell whether they came from a monkey or a human in the same market.

9:34 And what we'd really thought we'd done is like we'd actually introduced something that, at least for the monkeys and us,works like a real financial currency.Question is: do the monkeys start messing up in the same ways we do?

Well, we already saw anecdotally a couple of signs that they might. One thing we never saw in the monkey marketplace was any evidence of saving --you know, just like our own species.The monkeys entered the market, spent their entire budget and then went back to everyone else.The other thing we also spontaneously saw, embarrassingly enough,is spontaneous evidence of larceny. The monkeys would rip-off the tokens at every available opportunity --from each other, often from us --you know, things we didn't necessarily think we were introducing, but things we spontaneously saw.

10:13 So we said, this looks bad.

Can we actually see if the monkeys are doing exactly the same dumb things as humans do? One possibility is just kind of let the monkey financial system play out, you know, see if they start calling us for bailouts in a few years. We were a little impatient so we wanted to sort of speed things up a bit. So we said, let's actually give the monkeys the same kinds of problems that humans tend to get wrong in certain kinds of economic challenges, or certain kinds of economic experiments. And so, since the best way to see how people go wrong is to actually do it yourself,I'm going to give you guys a quick experiment to sort of watch your own financial intuitions in action.

10:49 So imagine that right now I handed each and every one of you a thousand U.S.

dollars -- so 10 crisp hundred dollar bills.Take these, put it in your wallet and spend a second thinking about what you're going to do with it. Because it's yours now; you can buy whatever you want.Donate it, take it, and so on.Sounds great, but you get one more choice to earn a little bit more money.And here's your choice: you can either be risky,in which case I'm going to flip one of these monkey tokens.If it comes up heads, you're going to get a thousand dollars more.If it comes up tails, you get nothing.So it's a chance to get more, but it's pretty risky.Your other option is a bit safe. Your just going to get some money for sure.I'm just going to give you 500 bucks.You can stick it in your wallet and use it immediately.So see what your intuition is here.Most people actually go with the play-it-safe option.Most people say, why should I be risky when I can get 1,500 dollars for sure?This seems like a good bet. I'm going to go with that.You might say, eh, that's not really irrational. People are a little risk-averse. So what?

11:41 Well, the "so what?

" comes when start thinking about the same problem set up just a little bit differently. So now imagine that I give each and every one of you 2,000 dollars -- 20 crisp hundred dollar bills. Now you can buy double to stuff you were going to get before.Think about how you'd feel sticking it in your wallet. And now imagine that I have you make another choice But this time, it's a little bit worse. Now, you're going to be deciding how you're going to lose money,but you're going to get the same choice.You can either take a risky loss --so I'll flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you're going to actually lose a lot.If it comes up tails, you lose nothing, you're fine, get to keep the whole thing --or you could play it safe, which means you have to reach back into your wallet and give me five of those $100 bills, for certain.

12:19 And I'm seeing a lot of furrowed brows out there.

So maybe you're having the same intuitions as the subjects that were actually tested in this, which is when presented with these options, people don't choose to play it safe. They actually tend to go a little risky. The reason this is irrational is that we've given people in both situations the same choice. It's a 50/50 shot of a thousand or 2,000, or just 1,500 dollars with certainty. But people's intuitions about how much risk to take varies depending on where they started with.

12:47 So what's going on?

Well, it turns out that this seems to be the result of at least two biases that we have at the psychological level. One is that we have a really hard time thinking in absolute terms. You really have to do work to figure out, well, one option's a thousand, 2,000; one is 1,500.Instead, we find it very easy to think in very relative terms as options change from one time to another. So we think of things as, "Oh, I'm going to get more," or "Oh, I'm going to get less. "This is all well and good, except that changes in different directions actually effect whether or not we think options are good or not. And this leads to the second bias, which economists have called loss aversion.

13:24 The idea is that we really hate it when things go into the red.

We really hate it when we have to lose out on some money. And this means that sometimes we'll actually switch our preferences to avoid this. What you saw in that last scenario is that subjects get risky because they want the small shot that there won't be any loss.That means when we're in a risk mindset --excuse me, when we're in a loss mindset, we actually become more risky, which can actually be really worrying. These kinds of things play out in lots of bad ways in humans.They're why stock investors hold onto losing stocks longer --because they're evaluating them in relative terms.They're why people in the housing market refused to sell their house --because they don't want to sell at a loss.

14:00 The question we were interested in is whether the monkeys show the same biases.

If we set up those same scenarios in our little monkey market, would they do the same thing as people? And so this is what we did, we gave the monkeys choices between guys who were safe -- they did the same thing every time - or guys who were risky - they did things differently half the time. And then we gave them options that were bonuses - like you guys did in the first scenario --so they actually have a chance to get more, or cases where they were experiencing losses -- they actually thought they were going to get more than they really got.

14:29 And so this is what this looks like.

We introduced the monkeys to two new monkey salesmen.The guy on the left and right both start with one piece of grape, so it looks pretty good. But they're going to give the monkeys bonuses.The guy on the left is a safe bonus. All the time, he adds one, to give the monkeys two.The guy on the right is actually a risky bonus. Sometimes the monkeys get no bonus -- so this is a bonus of zero. Sometimes the monkeys get two extra. For a big bonus, now they get three. But this is the same choice you guys just faced. Do the monkeys actually want to play it safe and then go with the guy who's going to do the same thing on every trial, or do they want to be risky and try to get a risky, but big, bonus, but risk the possibility of getting no bonus. People here played it safe. Turns out, the monkeys play it safe too. Qualitatively and quantitatively, they choose exactly the same way as people, when tested in the same thing.

15:17 You might say, well, maybe the monkeys just don't like risk.

Maybe we should see how they do with losses. And so we ran a second version of this. Now, the monkeys meet two guys who aren't giving them bonuses; they're actually giving them less than they expect. So they look like they're starting out with a big amount. These are three grapes; the monkey's really psyched for this. But now they learn these guys are going to give them less than they expect.They guy on the left is a safe loss. Every single time, he's going to take one of these away and give the monkeys just two. the guy on the right is the risky loss. Sometimes he gives no loss, so the monkeys are really psyched, but sometimes he actually gives a big loss, taking away two to give the monkeys only one.

15:52 And so what do the monkeys do?

Again, same choice; they can play it safe for always getting two grapes every single time, or they can take a risky bet and choose between one and three. The remarkable thing to us is that, when you give monkeys this choice, they do the same irrational thing that people do. They actually become more risky depending on how the experimenters started.This is crazy because it suggests that the monkeys too are evaluating things in relative terms and actually treating losses differently than they treat gains.

16:19 So what does all of this mean?

Well, what we've shown is that, first of all, we can actually give the monkeys a financial currency, and they do very similar things with it. They do some of the smart things we do, some of the kind of not so nice things we do, like steal it and so on. But they also do some of the irrational things we do. They systematically get things wrong and in the same ways that we do. This is the first take-home message of the Talk, which is that if you saw the beginning of this and you thought, oh, I'm totally going to go home and hire a capuchin monkey financial adviser. They're way cuter than the one at ... you know --Don't do that; they're probably going to be just as dumb as the human one you already have. So, you know, a little bad -- Sorry, sorry, sorry. A little bad for monkey investors.

16:56 But of course, you know, the reason you're laughing is bad for humans too.

Because we've answered the question we started out with. We wanted to know where these kinds of errors came from. And we started with the hope that maybe we can sort of tweak our financial institutions, tweak our technologies to make ourselves better. But what we've learn is that these biases might be a deeper part of us than that. In fact, they might be due to the very nature of our evolutionary history. You know, maybe it's not just humans at the right side of this chain that's duncey. Maybe it's sort of duncey all the way back. And this, if we believe the capuchin monkey results, means that these duncey strategies might be 35 million years old. That's a long time for a strategy to potentially get changed around -- really, really old.

17:36 What do we know about other old strategies like this?

Well, one thing we know is that they tend to be really hard to overcome. You know, think of our evolutionary predilection for eating sweet things, fatty things like cheesecake. You can't just shut that off. You can't just look at the dessert cart as say, "No, no, no. That looks disgusting to me. "We're just built differently. We're going to perceive it as a good thing to go after. My guess is that the same thing is going to be true when humans are perceiving different financial decisions. When you're watching your stocks plummet into the red, when you're watching your house price go down,you're not going to be able to see that in anything but old evolutionary terms. This means that the biases that lead investors to do badly, that lead to the foreclosure crisis are going to be really hard to overcome.

18:17 So that's the bad news.

The question is: is there any good news? I'm supposed to be up here telling you the good news. Well, the good news, I think, is what I started with at the beginning of the Talk, which is that humans are not only smart; we're really inspirationally smart to the rest of the animals in the biological kingdom. We're so good at overcoming our biological limitations --you know, I flew over here in an airplane. I didn't have to try to flap my wings. I'm wearing contact lenses now so that I can see all of you. I don't have to rely on my own near-sightedness. We actually have all of these cases where we overcome our biological limitations through technology and other means, seemingly pretty easily. But we have to recognize that we have those limitations.

18:56 And here's the rub.

It was Camus who once said that, "Man is the only species who refuses to be what he really is. "But the irony is that it might only be in recognizing our limitations that we can really actually overcome them. The hope is that you all will think about your limitations, not necessarily as unovercomable, but to recognize them, accept them and then use the world of design to actually figure them out. That might be the only way that we will really be able to achieve our own human potential and really be the noble species we hope to all be.

19:28 Thank you.

Laurie Santos: A monkey economy as irrational as ours لوري سانتوس: اقتصاد قرد غير عقلاني مثل اقتصادنا Laurie Santos: Eine Affenwirtschaft so irrational wie die unsere Laurie Santos: Una economía de monos tan irracional como la nuestra Laurie Santos : Une économie de singes aussi irrationnelle que la nôtre Laurie Santos: Un'economia scimmiesca irrazionale come la nostra ローリー・サントス: 私たちと同じくらい不合理な猿の経済 Laurie Santos: Beždžionių ekonomika tokia pat neracionali kaip mūsų Laurie Santos: Małpia ekonomia równie irracjonalna jak nasza Laurie Santos: Uma economia de macacos tão irracional como a nossa Лори Сантос: Обезьянья экономика, такая же иррациональная, как наша Laurie Santos: Bizimki kadar mantıksız bir maymun ekonomisi Лорі Сантос: Мавпяча економіка така ж ірраціональна, як і наша 劳里·桑托斯:猴子经济和我们的经济一样不合理 勞裡·桑托斯:猴子經濟和我們的經濟一樣不合理

I want to start my talk today with two observations about the human species.The first observation is something that you might think is quite obvious, and that's that our species, Homo sapiens, is actually really, really smart --like, ridiculously smart --like you're all doing things that no other species on the planet does right now And this is, of course, not the first time you've probably recognized this. أريد أن أبدأ حديثي اليوم بملاحظتين حول الجنس البشري. الملاحظة الأولى هي شيء قد تعتقد أنه واضح تمامًا، وهي أن جنسنا البشري، الإنسان العاقل، في الواقع ذكي حقًا -- مثل، ذكي بشكل يبعث على السخرية -- - وكأنك تفعل أشياء لا يفعلها أي كائن آخر على هذا الكوكب في الوقت الحالي. وهذه، بالطبع، ليست المرة الأولى التي ربما تدرك فيها هذا. I want to start my talk today with two observations about the human species.The first observation is something that you might think is quite obvious, and that's that our species, Homo sapiens, is actually really, really smart --like, ridiculously smart --like you're all doing things that no other species on the planet does right now And this is, of course, not the first time you've probably recognized this. 最初の観察は、皆さんはごく当たり前のことだと思うかもしれませんが、私たちの種であるホモ・サピエンスは、実は本当に、本当に頭がいいのです。 Quero começar minha palestra hoje com duas observações sobre a espécie humana. A primeira observação é algo que você pode achar bastante óbvio, e é que nossa espécie, Homo sapiens, é realmente muito, muito inteligente - como, ridiculamente inteligente - -como todos vocês estão fazendo coisas que nenhuma outra espécie do planeta faz agora. E essa não é a primeira vez que você provavelmente reconhece isso. Я хочу начать сегодняшнюю беседу с двух наблюдений о человеческом виде. Первое наблюдение может показаться вам вполне очевидным, а именно то, что наш вид, Homo sapiens, на самом деле очень, очень умен — например, до смешного умен — - как будто вы все делаете то, что сейчас не делает ни один другой вид на планете. И это, конечно, не первый раз, когда вы, вероятно, признаете это.

Of course, in addition to being smart, we're also an extremely vain species. بالطبع، بالإضافة إلى كوننا أذكياء، فنحن أيضًا كائنات تافهة للغاية. もちろん、私たちは頭が良いだけでなく、非常にうぬぼれやすい種でもあります。 Claro que, para além de sermos inteligentes, somos também uma espécie extremamente vaidosa. Конечно, помимо того, что мы умны, мы еще и чрезвычайно тщеславный вид. So we like pointing out the fact that we're smart.You know, so I could turn to pretty much any sage from  Shakespeare to Stephen Colbert to point out things like the fact that we're noble in reason and infinite in faculties and just kind of awesome-er than anything else on the planet when it comes to all things cerebral. لذلك نود أن نشير إلى حقيقة أننا أذكياء. كما تعلمون، يمكنني أن أتوجه إلى أي حكيم تقريبًا من شكسبير إلى ستيفن كولبيرت للإشارة إلى أشياء مثل حقيقة أننا نبلاء في العقل وغير محدودين في الملكات وفقط إنه أمر رائع أكثر من أي شيء آخر على هذا الكوكب عندما يتعلق الأمر بكل الأشياء الدماغية. Je pourrais donc m'adresser à n'importe quel sage, de Shakespeare à Stephen Colbert, pour souligner le fait que nous sommes nobles de raison et infinis de facultés, et que nous sommes tout simplement plus géniaux que n'importe qui d'autre sur la planète pour tout ce qui touche à la cérébralité. Так что нам нравится указывать на тот факт, что мы умны. Вы знаете, поэтому я мог бы обратиться практически к любому мудрецу от Шекспира до Стивена Кольбера, чтобы указать на такие вещи, как тот факт, что мы благородны в разуме и бесконечны в способностях и просто своего рода удивительный-лучше, чем что-либо еще на планете, когда дело доходит до всего, что связано с мозгом.

0:54 But of course, there's a second observation about the human species that I want to focus on a little bit more, and that's the fact that even though we're actually really smart, sometimes uniquely smart, we can also be incredibly, incredibly dumb when it comes to some aspects of our decision making. 0:54 لكن بالطبع، هناك ملاحظة ثانية حول الجنس البشري والتي أريد التركيز عليها أكثر قليلاً، وهي حقيقة أنه على الرغم من أننا أذكياء حقًا، وأحيانًا أذكياء بشكل فريد، إلا أنه يمكننا أيضًا أن نكون بشكل لا يصدق. غبي بشكل لا يصدق عندما يتعلق الأمر ببعض جوانب عملية صنع القرار لدينا. 0:54 Но, конечно же, есть второе наблюдение о человеческом виде, на котором я хочу сосредоточиться немного больше, и это тот факт, что, хотя мы на самом деле очень умны, иногда уникально умны, мы также можем быть невероятно, невероятно глупы, когда дело доходит до некоторых аспектов нашего принятия решений.

Now I'm seeing lots of smirks out there. الآن أرى الكثير من الابتسامات هناك. Agora estou a ver muitos sorrisos por aí. Теперь я вижу много ухмылок там. Don't worry, I'm not going to call anyone in particular out on any aspects of your own mistakes. لا تقلق، لن أتحدث عن أي شخص على وجه الخصوص بشأن أي جانب من أخطائك. Не волнуйтесь, я не собираюсь кого-то конкретно осуждать за ваши собственные ошибки. But of course, just in the last two years we see these unprecedented examples of human ineptitude. لكن بالطبع، في العامين الماضيين فقط، شهدنا هذه الأمثلة غير المسبوقة لعدم الكفاءة البشرية. Pero, por supuesto, solo en los últimos dos años vemos estos ejemplos sin precedentes de ineptitud humana. Mas é claro que só nos últimos dois anos assistimos a estes exemplos sem precedentes de inépcia humana. Но, конечно, именно в последние два года мы видим эти беспрецедентные примеры человеческой бездарности. And we've watched as the tools we uniquely make to pull the resources out of our environment kind of just blow up in our face. ولقد شاهدنا الأدوات التي نصنعها بشكل فريد لسحب الموارد من بيئتنا تنفجر في وجوهنا. Et nous avons vu les outils que nous fabriquons de manière unique pour extraire les ressources de notre environnement nous exploser à la figure. И мы наблюдали, как уникальные инструменты, которые мы создаем для извлечения ресурсов из окружающей среды, просто взрывались прямо у нас перед носом. We've watched the financial markets that we uniquely create --these markets that were supposed to be fool proof --we've watched them kind of collapse before our eyes. لقد شاهدنا الأسواق المالية التي أنشأناها بشكل فريد - هذه الأسواق التي كان من المفترض أن تكون دليلاً على الخداع - شاهدناها تنهار أمام أعيننا. We've watched the financial markets that we uniquely create --these markets that were supposed to be fool proof --we've watched them kind of collapse before our eyes. Nous avons vu les marchés financiers que nous avons créés de manière unique - ces marchés qui étaient censés être à toute épreuve - s'effondrer sous nos yeux. Vimos os mercados financeiros que criámos de forma única - esses mercados que eram supostamente à prova de falhas - a desmoronarem-se diante dos nossos olhos. Мы наблюдали, как финансовые рынки, которые мы создали уникальным образом — эти рынки, которые должны были быть надежными, — мы наблюдали, как они рушились на наших глазах.

1:34 But both of these two embarrassing examples, I think, don't highlight what I think is most embarrassing about the mistakes that humans make, which is that we'd like to think that the mistakes we make are really just the result of a couple bad apples or a couple really sort of FAIL Blog-worthy decisions. 1:34 لكن هذين المثالين المحرجين، أعتقد، لا يسلطان الضوء على ما أعتقد أنه الأكثر إحراجًا بشأن الأخطاء التي يرتكبها البشر، وهو أننا نود أن نعتقد أن الأخطاء التي نرتكبها هي في الحقيقة مجرد نتيجة من زوجين من التفاح الفاسد أو زوجين من القرارات الفاشلة حقًا التي تستحق المدونة. 1:34 Mais ces deux exemples embarrassants ne mettent pas en évidence ce qui, à mon avis, est le plus embarrassant dans les erreurs commises par les humains, à savoir que nous aimons penser que les erreurs que nous commettons ne sont que le résultat de quelques pommes pourries ou de quelques décisions vraiment dignes d'un FAIL Blog. 1:34 Но оба этих неловких примера, я думаю, не подчеркивают того, что я считаю самым неловким в ошибках, которые совершают люди, а именно то, что мы хотели бы думать, что ошибки, которые мы делаем, на самом деле являются просто результатом. из пары паршивых яблок или пары действительно своего рода НЕУДАЧНЫХ решений, достойных блога.

But it turns out, what social scientists are actually learning is that most of us, when put in certain contexts, will actually make very specific mistakes. Но оказывается, что на самом деле социологи узнают, что большинство из нас, попадая в определенные контексты, на самом деле совершают очень специфические ошибки. The errors we make are actually predictable. We make them again and again. And they're actually immune to lots of evidence. Et ils sont en fait immunisés contre de nombreuses preuves. И они на самом деле невосприимчивы к большому количеству доказательств. When we get negative feedback, we still, the next time we're face with a certain context, tend to make the same errors. Когда мы получаем отрицательную обратную связь, мы все равно в следующий раз, когда сталкиваемся с определенным контекстом, склонны совершать те же ошибки. And so this has been a real puzzle to me as a sort of scholar of human nature. Dla mnie, jako badacza ludzkiej natury, było to prawdziwą zagadką. E isto tem sido um verdadeiro quebra-cabeças para mim como uma espécie de estudioso da natureza humana. Так что это было настоящей загадкой для меня как для исследователя человеческой природы. What I'm most curious about is, how is a species that's as smart as we are capable of such bad and such consistent errors all the time? Najbardziej ciekawi mnie, w jaki sposób gatunek, który jest tak inteligentny jak my, jest zdolny do tak złych i konsekwentnych błędów przez cały czas? Что меня больше всего интересует, так это то, как такой умный вид, как мы, способен все время на такие ужасные и такие последовательные ошибки?

2:24 You know, we're the smartest thing out there, why can't we figure this out? 2:24 Vous savez, nous sommes la chose la plus intelligente qui soit, pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas résoudre ce problème ? 2:24 Jesteśmy najmądrzejsi, dlaczego nie możemy tego rozgryźć? 2:24 Знаешь, мы самые умные, почему мы не можем понять это?

In some sense, where do our mistakes really come from? W pewnym sensie, skąd tak naprawdę biorą się nasze błędy? And having thought about this a little bit, I see a couple different possibilities. И, немного подумав об этом, я вижу несколько разных возможностей. One possibility is, in some sense, it's not really our fault. Uma possibilidade é que, de certa forma, a culpa não é realmente nossa. Одна возможность, в некотором смысле, это не совсем наша вина. Because we're a smart species, we can actually create all kinds of environments that are super, super complicated, sometimes too complicated for us to even actually understand, even though we've actually created them. Поскольку мы разумный вид, мы действительно можем создавать всевозможные среды, которые очень, очень сложны, иногда слишком сложны для того, чтобы мы могли их понять, даже если мы на самом деле создали их. We create financial markets that are super complex. We create mortgage terms that we can't actually deal with. Criamos condições de hipoteca com as quais não podemos lidar. Мы создаем условия ипотеки, с которыми на самом деле не можем иметь дело. And of course, if we are put in environments where we can't deal with it, in some sense makes sense that we actually might mess certain things up. И, конечно же, если мы попадаем в среду, в которой мы не можем с этим справиться, в некотором смысле имеет смысл, что мы на самом деле можем испортить некоторые вещи. If this was the case, we'd have a really easy solution to the problem of human error. Если бы это было так, у нас было бы действительно простое решение проблемы человеческой ошибки. We'd actually just say, okay, let's figure out the kinds of technologies we can't deal with, the kinds of environments that are bad -- get rid of those, design things better, and we should be the noble species that we expect ourselves to be. На самом деле мы бы просто сказали: «Хорошо, давайте выясним, с какими технологиями мы не можем справиться, какие виды окружающей среды являются плохими — избавьтесь от них, спроектируйте вещи лучше, и мы должны быть благородными видами, которыми мы живем». ожидать, что мы будем.

3:15 But there's another possibility that I find a little bit more worrying, which is, maybe it's not our environments that are messed up. 3:15 Но есть еще одна возможность, которая меня немного больше беспокоит, а именно, может быть, дело не в нашей окружающей среде.

Maybe it's actually us that's designed badly. Talvez sejamos nós que estejamos mal concebidos. Может быть, это на самом деле мы плохо спроектированы. This is a hint that I've gotten from watching the ways that social scientists have learned about human errors. Dit is een hint die ik heb gekregen door te kijken naar de manieren waarop sociale wetenschappers hebben geleerd over menselijke fouten. Esta é uma dica que obtive ao observar as formas como os cientistas sociais aprenderam sobre os erros humanos. Это намек, который я получил, наблюдая за тем, как социологи узнают о человеческих ошибках. And what we see is that people tend to keep making errors exactly the same way, over and over again. И мы видим, что люди, как правило, продолжают делать ошибки точно так же, снова и снова. It feels like we might almost just be built to make errors in certain ways.This is a possibility that I worry a little bit more about, because, if it's us that's messed up, it's not actually clear how we go about dealing with it. Такое ощущение, что мы почти созданы для того, чтобы делать ошибки определенным образом. Это возможность, о которой я беспокоюсь немного больше, потому что, если это мы ошибаемся, на самом деле неясно, как мы справляемся с этим. We might just have to accept the fact that we're error prone and try to design things around it. Talvez tenhamos de aceitar o facto de que somos propensos a erros e tentar conceber as coisas à volta disso. Возможно, нам просто придется принять тот факт, что мы подвержены ошибкам, и попытаться спроектировать что-то вокруг этого.

3:51 So this is the question my students and I wanted to get at.

How can we tell the difference between possibility one and possibility two? Как мы можем определить разницу между возможностью один и возможностью два? What we need is a population that's basically smart, can make lots of decisions, but doesn't have access to any of the systems we have, any of the things that might mess us up --no human technology, human culture, maybe even not human language. Ce dont nous avons besoin, c'est d'une population fondamentalement intelligente, capable de prendre de nombreuses décisions, mais qui n'a accès à aucun des systèmes dont nous disposons, à aucune des choses qui pourraient nous perturber - pas de technologie humaine, pas de culture humaine, peut-être même pas de langage humain. O que precisamos é de uma população que seja basicamente inteligente, capaz de tomar muitas decisões, mas que não tenha acesso a nenhum dos sistemas que temos, a nenhuma das coisas que nos podem estragar - nenhuma tecnologia humana, cultura humana, talvez nem mesmo linguagem humana. Что нам нужно, так это население, которое в основном умно, может принимать множество решений, но не имеет доступа ни к одной из систем, которые у нас есть, ни к чему-то, что может нас запутать — никаких человеческих технологий, человеческой культуры, может быть, даже не человеческий язык. And so this is why we turned to these guys here.These are one of the guys I work with. Foi por isso que recorremos a estes tipos, com quem trabalho. This is a brown capuchin monkey. These guys are New World primates, which means they broke off from the human branch about 35 million years ago.This means that your great, great, great great, great, great --with about five million "greats" in there --grandmother was probably the same great, great, great, great grandmother with five million "greats" in there as Holly up here.You know, so you can take comfort in the fact that this guy up here is a really really distant, but albeit evolutionary, relative.The good news about Holly though is that she doesn't actually have the same kinds of technologies we do.You know, she's a smart, very cut creature, a primate as well, but she lacks all the stuff we think might be messing us up. Эти ребята — приматы Нового Света, что означает, что они отделились от человеческой ветви около 35 миллионов лет назад. был, вероятно, такой же пра-пра-пра-прабабушкой с пятью миллионами "пра" там, как и Холли здесь наверху. Вы знаете, так что вы можете утешиться тем фактом, что этот парень действительно очень далекий, но хотя и эволюционный , родственница. Хорошие новости о Холли, однако, в том, что у нее на самом деле нет таких технологий, как у нас. Вы знаете, она умное, очень вырезанное существо, к тому же примат, но ей не хватает всего того, что, как мы думаем, могло бы спутать нас. So she's the perfect test case. So she's the perfect test case.

4:47 What if we put Holly into the same context as humans? 4:47 ホリーを人間と同じ文脈に置くとどうなるでしょうか?

Does she make the same mistakes as us? Does she not learn from them? And so on. And so this is the kind of thing we decided to do. My students and I got very excited about this a few years ago. We said, all right, let's, you know, throw so problems at Holly, see if she messes these things up. First problem is just, well, where should we start? Because, you know, it's great for us, but bad for humans.We make a lot of mistakes in a lot of different contexts. You know, where are we actually going to start with this? And because we started this work around the time of the financial collapse, around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news, we said, hhmm, maybe we should actually start in the financial domain. And because we started this work around the time of the financial collapse, around the time when foreclosures were hitting the news, we said, hhmm, maybe we should actually start in the financial domain. Et comme nous avons commencé ce travail au moment de l'effondrement financier, au moment où les saisies immobilières faisaient la une des journaux, nous nous sommes dit que nous devrions peut-être commencer par le domaine financier. そして、金融崩壊の頃、差し押さえがニュースになった頃にこの仕事を始めたので、うーん、実際には金融分野から始めるべきかもしれないと言いました。 И поскольку мы начали эту работу примерно во время финансового краха, примерно в то время, когда в новостях появились сообщения о лишении права выкупа, мы сказали: хм, может, нам действительно стоит начать с финансовой сферы. Maybe we should look at monkey's economic decisions and try to see if they do the same kinds of dumb things that we do. たぶん、サルの経済的決定を見て、彼らが私たちと同じ種類のばかげたことをするかどうかを確認する必要があります.

5:26 Of course, that's when we hit a sort second problem --a little bit more methodological --which is that, maybe you guys don't know, but monkeys don't actually use money.

I know, you haven't met them. But this is why, you know, they're not in the queue behind you at the grocery store or the ATM -- you know, they don't do this stuff. So now we faced, you know, a little bit of a problem here. How are we actually going to ask monkeys about money if they don't actually use it? So we said, well, maybe we should just, actually just suck it up and teach monkeys how to use money. Nous nous sommes donc dit que nous devrions peut-être nous contenter d'apprendre aux singes à se servir de l'argent. それで、私たちは、まあ、実際にそれを吸って、サルにお金の使い方を教えるべきかもしれないと言いました。 Итак, мы сказали, что, может быть, нам стоит просто смириться и научить обезьян пользоваться деньгами. So that's just what we did. What you're looking at over here is actually the first unit that I know of of non-human currency. あなたがここで見ているのは、実際に私が知っている最初の人間以外の通貨のユニットです. We weren't very creative at the time we started these studies, so we just called it a token. But this is the unit of currency that we've taught our monkeys at Yale to actually use with humans, to actually buy different pieces of food.It doesn't look like much -- in fact, it isn't like much. Mais il s'agit de l'unité monétaire que nous avons appris à nos singes à Yale à utiliser avec les humains, pour acheter différents morceaux de nourriture. しかし、これはイェール大学のサルたちに、実際に人間と一緒に使って、実際にさまざまな食べ物を買うために教えた通貨単位です。

6:12 Like most of our money, it's just a piece of metal.As those of you who've taken currencies home from your trip know, once you get home, it's actually pretty useless. 6:12 Like most of our money, it's just a piece of metal.As those of you who've taken currencies home from your trip know, once you get home, it's actually pretty useless. 6:12 Comme la plupart de notre argent, ce n'est qu'un morceau de métal. Comme le savent ceux d'entre vous qui ont ramené des devises de leur voyage, une fois rentrés chez eux, elles sont en fait assez inutiles. 6:12 私たちのほとんどのお金と同様に、それは単なる金属片です。旅行から通貨を家に持ち帰った人は知っているように、家に帰ると、実際にはほとんど役に立たなくなります。 6:12 Как и большинство наших денег, это всего лишь кусок металла. Как известно тем из вас, кто брал домой валюту из поездки, по возвращении домой она практически бесполезна.

It was useless to the monkeys at first before they realized what they could do with it. 猿たちは、それで何ができるかを理解する前に、最初は役に立たなかった. When we first gave it to them in their enclosures,  they actually kind of picked them up, looked at them.They were these kind of weird things. Lorsque nous leur avons donné pour la première fois dans leur enclos, ils les ont en quelque sorte ramassés et regardés. 私たちが最初に囲いに入れて彼らに渡したとき、彼らは実際にそれらを手に取って見ました。 Когда мы впервые дали им это в их вольерах, они как бы подняли их, посмотрели на них. Это были такие странные вещи. But very quickly, the monkeys realized that they could actually hand these tokens over to different humans in the lab for some food. しかしすぐに、サルはこれらのトークンを実験室の別の人間に渡して食べ物を得ることができることに気付きました。 And so you see one of our monkeys, Mayday, up here doing this.This is A and B are kind of the points where she's sort of a little bit curious about these things -- doesn't know. There's this waiting hand from a human experimenter, and Mayday quickly figures out, apparently the human wants this. Il y a cette main qui attend un expérimentateur humain, et Mayday comprend rapidement que c'est apparemment l'humain qui veut ça. Есть эта ожидающая рука человека-экспериментатора, и Мэйдей быстро соображает, очевидно, человек хочет этого. Hands it over, and then gets some food. It turns out not just Mayday, all of our monkeys get good at trading tokens with  human salesman. メーデーだけでなく、すべてのサルが人間のセールスマンとトークンを取引するのが得意です。 Оказывается, не только Mayday, все наши обезьяны умеют торговать жетонами с продавцами-людьми. So here's just a quick video of what this looks like. Here's Mayday. She's going to be trading a token for some food and waiting happily and getting her food. Here's Felix, I think. He's our alpha male; he's a kind of big guy.But he too waits patiently, gets his food and goes on. Он наш альфа-самец; он большой парень. Но он тоже терпеливо ждет, получает еду и идет дальше.

7:07 So the monkeys get really good at this.They're surprisingly good at this with very little training.

We just allowed them to pick this up on their own.The question is: is this anything like human money? Is this a market at all, or did we just do a weird psychologist's trick by getting monkeys to do something, looking smart, but not really being smart. これは市場なのだろうか、それとも私たちは猿に何かをさせるという奇妙な心理学者のトリックをしただけで、賢く見えるが実際には賢くない. And so we said, well, what would the monkeys spontaneously do if this was really their currency, if they were really using it like money? Well, you might actually imagine them to do all the kinds of smart things that humans do when they start exchanging money with each other. You might have them start paying attention to price,paying attention to how much they buy --sort of keeping track of their monkey token, as it were.Do the monkeys do anything like this?

7:47 And so our monkey marketplace was born.The way this works is that our monkeys normally live in a kind of big zoo social enclosure.

When they get a hankering for some treats, we actually allowed them a way out into a little smaller enclosure where they could enter the market. Когда они жаждут угощений, мы фактически позволяем им выйти в небольшой вольер меньшего размера, где они могут выйти на рынок. Upon entering the market --it was actually a much more fun market for the monkeys than most human markets because, as the monkeys entered the door of the market, a human would give them a big wallet full of tokens so they could actually trade the tokens with one of these two guys here --two different possible human salesmen that they could actually buy stuff from.The salesmen were students from my lab.They dressed differently; they were different people. And over time, they did basically the same thing so the monkeys could learn, you know, who sold what at what price -- you know, who was reliable, who wasn't, and so on. And you can see that each of the experimenters is actually holding up a little, yellow food dish and that's what the monkey can get for a single token. Vous pouvez voir que chacun des expérimentateurs tient un petit plat de nourriture jaune et que c'est ce que le singe peut obtenir pour un seul jeton. So everything costs one token, but as you can see, sometimes tokens buy more than others, sometimes more grapes than others. Итак, все стоит один жетон, но, как видите, иногда на жетоны можно купить больше, чем на другие, иногда больше винограда, чем на другие.

8:43 So I'll show you a quick video of what this marketplace actually looks like.Here's a monkey-eye-view.

Monkeys are shorter, so it's a little short.But here's Honey.She's waiting for the market to open a little impatiently.All of a sudden the market opens. Обезьяны короче, поэтому немного коротковаты. Но вот Хани. Она ждет открытия рынка с некоторым нетерпением. Внезапно рынок открывается. Here's her choice: one grapes or two grapes.You can see Honey, very good market economist,goes with the guy who gives more.She could teach our financial advisers a few things or two.So not just Honey,most of the monkeys went with guys who had more.Most of the monkeys went with guys who had better food.When we introduced sales, we saw the monkeys paid attention to that.They really cared about their monkey token dollar.The more surprising thing was that when we collaborated with economists to actually look at the monkeys' data using economic tools, they basically matched, not just qualitatively, but quantitatively with what we saw humans doing in a real market.So much so that, if you saw the monkeys' numbers,you couldn't tell whether they came from a monkey or a human in the same market. Вот ее выбор: одна виноградинка или две виноградинки. Как видите, Хани, очень хороший экономист по рынку, идет с парнем, который дает больше. Она могла бы научить наших финансовых консультантов нескольким вещам. с парнями, у которых было больше. Большинство обезьян ходили с парнями, у которых была лучшая еда. Когда мы ввели распродажи, мы увидели, что обезьяны обратили на это внимание. Они действительно заботились о своих обезьяньих жетонах. Когда экономисты действительно рассматривали данные об обезьянах с помощью экономических инструментов, они в основном совпадали не только качественно, но и количественно с тем, что мы видели, как люди делали на реальном рынке. Настолько, что, если бы вы видели цифры обезьян, вы бы не сказать, пришли ли они от обезьяны или человека на том же рынке.

9:34 And what we'd really thought we'd done is like we'd actually introduced something that, at least for the monkeys and us,works like a real financial currency.Question is: do the monkeys start messing up in the same ways we do? 9:34 На самом деле мы думали, что сделали то, что на самом деле представили что-то, что, по крайней мере, для обезьян и нас, работает как настоящая финансовая валюта. Вопрос в том, начинают ли обезьяны лажать в так же, как мы?

Well, we already saw anecdotally a couple of signs that they might. Ну, мы уже случайно видели пару признаков того, что они могут. One thing we never saw in the monkey marketplace was any evidence of saving --you know, just like our own species.The monkeys entered the market, spent their entire budget and then went back to everyone else.The other thing we also spontaneously saw, embarrassingly enough,is spontaneous evidence of larceny. Чего мы никогда не видели на обезьяньем рынке, так это каких-либо признаков сбережений, как и представителей нашего собственного вида. Обезьяны вышли на рынок, потратили весь свой бюджет, а затем вернулись ко всем остальным. Другая вещь, которую мы также спонтанно увидели , как это ни смущает, является спонтанным свидетельством воровства. The monkeys would rip-off the tokens at every available opportunity --from each other, often from us --you know, things we didn't necessarily think we were introducing, but things we spontaneously saw. Обезьяны срывали жетоны при каждой возможности — друг у друга, часто у нас — вы знаете, вещи, которые мы не обязательно представляли, но вещи, которые мы спонтанно видели.

10:13 So we said, this looks bad.

Can we actually see if the monkeys are doing exactly the same dumb things as humans do? One possibility is just kind of let the monkey financial system play out, you know, see if they start calling us for bailouts in a few years. L'une des possibilités est de laisser le système financier des singes se développer, et de voir s'ils commenceront à nous appeler pour des renflouements dans quelques années. Один из вариантов — просто позволить обезьяньей финансовой системе разыграться, ну, знаете, посмотреть, не начнут ли они призывать нас к спасению через несколько лет. We were a little impatient so we wanted to sort of speed things up a bit. Nous étions un peu impatients et nous voulions donc accélérer un peu les choses. Мы были немного нетерпеливы, поэтому хотели немного ускорить процесс. So we said, let's actually give the monkeys the same kinds of problems that humans tend to get wrong in certain kinds of economic challenges, or certain kinds of economic experiments. Итак, мы сказали, давайте на самом деле дадим обезьянам те же проблемы, которые люди склонны решать неправильно в определенных экономических задачах или определенных видах экономических экспериментов. And so, since the best way to see how people go wrong is to actually do it yourself,I'm going to give you guys a quick experiment to sort of watch your own financial intuitions in action. Comme le meilleur moyen de voir comment les gens se trompent est de le faire soi-même, je vais vous proposer une expérience rapide pour observer vos propres intuitions financières en action.

10:49 So imagine that right now I handed each and every one of you a thousand U.S. 10:49 Итак, представьте, что прямо сейчас я вручил каждому из вас по тысяче долларов США.

dollars -- so 10 crisp hundred dollar bills.Take these, put it in your wallet and spend a second thinking about what you're going to do with it. Prenez-les, mettez-les dans votre portefeuille et réfléchissez une seconde à ce que vous allez en faire. долларов — так что 10 хрустящих стодолларовых банкнот. Возьмите их, положите в бумажник и потратьте секунду, думая о том, что вы собираетесь с ними делать. Because it's yours now; you can buy whatever you want.Donate it, take it, and so on.Sounds great, but you get one more choice to earn a little bit more money.And here's your choice: you can either be risky,in which case I'm going to flip one of these monkey tokens.If it comes up heads, you're going to get a thousand dollars more.If it comes up tails, you get nothing.So it's a chance to get more, but it's pretty risky.Your other option is a bit safe. Parce qu'il est à vous maintenant, vous pouvez acheter ce que vous voulez, le donner, le prendre, et ainsi de suite.Ça a l'air génial, mais vous avez encore une possibilité de gagner un peu plus d'argent.Et voici votre choix : vous pouvez soit être risqué, auquel cas je vais retourner un de ces jetons de singe.Si c'est pile, vous allez obtenir mille dollars de plus.Si c'est face, vous n'aurez rien.C'est donc une chance d'obtenir plus, mais c'est assez risqué.L'autre option est un peu plus sûre. Your just going to get some money for sure.I'm just going to give you 500 bucks.You can stick it in your wallet and use it immediately.So see what your intuition is here.Most people actually go with the play-it-safe option.Most people say, why should I be risky when I can get 1,500 dollars for sure?This seems like a good bet. Vous allez recevoir de l'argent à coup sûr.Je vais vous donner 500 dollars.Vous pouvez les mettre dans votre portefeuille et les utiliser immédiatement.Voyez donc quelle est votre intuition.La plupart des gens choisissent en fait l'option de la sécurité.La plupart des gens se disent, pourquoi devrais-je prendre des risques alors que je peux obtenir 1 500 dollars à coup sûr?cela semble être un bon pari. I'm going to go with that.You might say, eh, that's not really irrational. Vous pourriez dire, eh, ce n'est pas vraiment irrationnel. People are a little risk-averse. Люди немного не склонны к риску. So what?

11:41 Well, the "so what?

" comes when start thinking about the same problem set up just a little bit differently. So now imagine that I give each and every one of you 2,000 dollars -- 20 crisp hundred dollar bills. А теперь представьте, что я даю каждому из вас по 2000 долларов — 20 хрустящих стодолларовых купюр. Now you can buy double to stuff you were going to get before.Think about how you'd feel sticking it in your wallet. Maintenant, vous pouvez acheter le double de ce que vous achetiez avant. Pensez à ce que vous ressentiriez en le glissant dans votre portefeuille. Теперь вы можете купить вдвое больше того, что собирались купить раньше. Подумайте о том, как бы вы себя чувствовали, засунув это в свой бумажник. And now imagine that I have you make another choice But this time, it's a little bit worse. Now, you're going to be deciding how you're going to lose money,but you're going to get the same choice.You can either take a risky loss --so I'll flip a coin. Maintenant, vous allez décider comment vous allez perdre de l'argent, mais vous aurez le même choix : vous pouvez soit prendre une perte risquée - alors je vais tirer à pile ou face. Теперь вы будете решать, как вы собираетесь терять деньги, но у вас будет тот же выбор. Вы можете либо пойти на рискованный проигрыш, поэтому я подброшу монетку. If it comes up heads, you're going to actually lose a lot.If it comes up tails, you lose nothing, you're fine, get to keep the whole thing --or you could play it safe, which means you have to reach back into your wallet and give me five of those $100 bills, for certain. Si c'est pile, vous ne perdez rien, tout va bien, vous pouvez garder le tout - ou vous pouvez jouer la sécurité, ce qui veut dire que vous devez fouiller dans votre portefeuille et me donner cinq de ces billets de 100 dollars, c'est certain. Если выпадет решка, вы на самом деле много потеряете. Если выпадет решка, вы ничего не потеряете, все в порядке, вы можете оставить все себе — или вы можете перестраховаться, а это значит, что у вас есть залезть в свой бумажник и дать мне пять стодолларовых банкнот, уж точно.

12:19 And I'm seeing a lot of furrowed brows out there. 12:19 И я вижу много нахмуренных бровей.

So maybe you're having the same intuitions as the subjects that were actually tested in this, which is when presented with these options, people don't choose to play it safe. Так что, возможно, у вас та же интуиция, что и у испытуемых, которые на самом деле были протестированы в этом, а именно, когда им предоставляются эти варианты, люди не предпочитают играть в нее безопасно. They actually tend to go a little risky. Они на самом деле имеют тенденцию идти немного рискованно. The reason this is irrational is that we've given people in both situations the same choice. It's a 50/50 shot of a thousand or 2,000, or just 1,500 dollars with certainty. Это выстрел 50/50 из тысячи или 2000, или просто 1500 долларов с уверенностью. But people's intuitions about how much risk to take varies depending on where they started with. Но интуиция людей о том, насколько велик риск, зависит от того, с чего они начали.

12:47 So what's going on?

Well, it turns out that this seems to be the result of at least two biases that we have at the psychological level. Что ж, получается, что это, кажется, результат как минимум двух предубеждений, которые у нас есть на психологическом уровне. One is that we have a really hard time thinking in absolute terms. You really have to do work to figure out, well, one option's a thousand, 2,000; one is 1,500.Instead, we find it very easy to think in very relative terms as options change from one time to another. Вам действительно нужно поработать, чтобы понять, ну, один вариант на тысячу, 2000; один равен 1500. Вместо этого нам очень легко думать в очень относительных терминах, поскольку варианты меняются от одного раза к другому. So we think of things as, "Oh, I'm going to get more," or "Oh, I'm going to get less. "This is all well and good, except that changes in different directions actually effect whether or not we think options are good or not. And this leads to the second bias, which economists have called loss aversion. И это приводит ко второму предубеждению, которое экономисты называют неприятием потерь.

13:24 The idea is that we really hate it when things go into the red.

We really hate it when we have to lose out on some money. And this means that sometimes we'll actually switch our preferences to avoid this. И это означает, что иногда мы действительно переключаем наши предпочтения, чтобы избежать этого. What you saw in that last scenario is that subjects get risky because they want the small shot that there won't be any loss.That means when we're in a risk mindset --excuse me, when we're in a loss mindset, we actually become more risky, which can actually be really worrying. These kinds of things play out in lots of bad ways in humans.They're why stock investors hold onto losing stocks longer --because they're evaluating them in relative terms.They're why people in the housing market refused to sell their house --because they don't want to sell at a loss. Подобные вещи проявляются на людях во многих негативных отношениях. Именно поэтому инвесторы в акции дольше держат убыточные акции — потому что они оценивают их в относительном выражении. Именно поэтому люди на рынке жилья отказываются продавать свои дом -- потому что они не хотят продавать в убыток.

14:00 The question we were interested in is whether the monkeys show the same biases. 14:00 Нас интересовал вопрос, демонстрируют ли обезьяны такие же предубеждения.

If we set up those same scenarios in our little monkey market, would they do the same thing as people? And so this is what we did, we gave the monkeys choices between guys who were safe -- they did the same thing every time - or guys who were risky - they did things differently half the time. And then we gave them options that were bonuses - like you guys did in the first scenario --so they actually have a chance to get more, or cases where they were experiencing losses -- they actually thought they were going to get more than they really got.

14:29 And so this is what this looks like.

We introduced the monkeys to two new monkey salesmen.The guy on the left and right both start with one piece of grape, so it looks pretty good. Мы познакомили обезьян с двумя новыми продавцами обезьян. Парни слева и справа оба начинают с одного кусочка винограда, так что это выглядит неплохо. But they're going to give the monkeys bonuses.The guy on the left is a safe bonus. All the time, he adds one, to give the monkeys two.The guy on the right is actually a risky bonus. Sometimes the monkeys get no bonus -- so this is a bonus of zero. Sometimes the monkeys get two extra. For a big bonus, now they get three. But this is the same choice you guys just faced. Do the monkeys actually want to play it safe and then go with the guy who's going to do the same thing on every trial, or do they want to be risky and try to get a risky, but big, bonus, but risk the possibility of getting no bonus. People here played it safe. Turns out, the monkeys play it safe too. Оказывается, обезьяны тоже перестраховываются. Qualitatively and quantitatively, they choose exactly the same way as people, when tested in the same thing.

15:17 You might say, well, maybe the monkeys just don't like risk.

Maybe we should see how they do with losses. And so we ran a second version of this. Now, the monkeys meet two guys who aren't giving them bonuses; they're actually giving them less than they expect. So they look like they're starting out with a big amount. These are three grapes; the monkey's really psyched for this. Это три виноградины; обезьяна действительно взволнована этим. But now they learn these guys are going to give them less than they expect.They guy on the left is a safe loss. Every single time, he's going to take one of these away and give the monkeys just two. the guy on the right is the risky loss. Sometimes he gives no loss, so the monkeys are really psyched, but sometimes he actually gives a big loss, taking away two to give the monkeys only one. Иногда он не дает никаких потерь, поэтому обезьяны действительно взволнованы, но иногда он действительно дает большие потери, забирая две, чтобы дать обезьянам только одну.

15:52 And so what do the monkeys do?

Again, same choice; they can play it safe for always getting two grapes every single time, or they can take a risky bet and choose between one and three. The remarkable thing to us is that, when you give monkeys this choice, they do the same irrational thing that people do. They actually become more risky depending on how the experimenters started.This is crazy because it suggests that the monkeys too are evaluating things in relative terms and actually treating losses differently than they treat gains. На самом деле они становятся более рискованными в зависимости от того, как экспериментаторы начали. Это безумие, потому что предполагает, что обезьяны тоже оценивают вещи в относительных терминах и на самом деле относятся к потерям иначе, чем к приобретениям.

16:19 So what does all of this mean?

Well, what we've shown is that,  first of all, we can actually give the monkeys a financial currency, and they do very similar things with it. They do some of the smart things we do, some of the kind of not so nice things we do, like steal it and so on. But they also do some of the irrational things we do. They systematically get things wrong and in the same ways that we do. This is the first take-home message of the Talk, which is that if you saw the beginning of this and you thought, oh, I'm totally going to go home and hire a capuchin monkey financial adviser. They're way cuter than the one at ... you know --Don't do that; they're probably going to be just as dumb as the human one you already have. So, you know, a little bad -- Sorry, sorry, sorry. A little bad for monkey investors.

16:56 But of course, you know, the reason you're laughing is bad for humans too.

Because we've answered the question we started out with. We wanted to know where these kinds of errors came from. And we started with the hope that maybe we can sort of tweak our financial institutions, tweak our technologies to make ourselves better. И мы начали с надежды, что, может быть, мы сможем настроить наши финансовые институты, настроить наши технологии, чтобы сделать себя лучше. But what we've learn is that these biases might be a deeper part of us than that. Но мы узнали, что эти предубеждения могут быть более глубокой частью нас. In fact, they might be due to the very nature of our evolutionary history. На самом деле они могут быть связаны с самой природой нашей эволюционной истории. You know, maybe it's not just humans at the right side of this chain that's duncey. Weet je, misschien zijn het niet alleen mensen aan de rechterkant van deze keten die domkop zijn. Знаешь, может быть, не только люди на правой стороне этой цепи дураки. Maybe it's sort of duncey all the way back. Может быть, это своего рода глупость всю обратную дорогу. And this, if we believe the capuchin monkey results, means that these duncey strategies might be 35 million years old. И это, если мы поверим результатам исследования обезьян-капуцинов, означает, что этим глупым стратегиям может быть 35 миллионов лет. That's a long time for a strategy to potentially get changed around -- really, really old.

17:36 What do we know about other old strategies like this?

Well, one thing we know is that they tend to be really hard to overcome. Что ж, мы знаем одно: их, как правило, очень трудно преодолеть. You know, think of our evolutionary predilection for eating sweet things, fatty things like cheesecake. Вы знаете, подумайте о нашей эволюционной склонности есть сладкое, жирное, например чизкейк. You can't just shut that off. You can't just look at the dessert cart as say, "No, no, no. That looks disgusting to me. Мне это кажется отвратительным. "We're just built differently. We're going to perceive it as a good thing to go after. Мы собираемся воспринимать это как хорошую вещь, чтобы идти после. My guess is that the same thing is going to be true when humans are perceiving different financial decisions. Я предполагаю, что то же самое произойдет, когда люди будут принимать разные финансовые решения. When you're watching your stocks plummet into the red, when you're watching your house price go down,you're not going to be able to see that in anything but old evolutionary terms. Когда вы наблюдаете, как ваши акции падают в минус, когда вы наблюдаете, как падает цена вашего дома, вы не сможете увидеть это ни в чем другом, кроме как в старых эволюционных терминах. This means that the biases that lead investors to do badly, that lead to the foreclosure crisis are going to be really hard to overcome. Dit betekent dat de vooroordelen die ertoe leiden dat investeerders het slecht doen, die tot de afschermingcrisis leiden, heel moeilijk te overwinnen zullen zijn. Это означает, что предубеждения, которые заставляют инвесторов плохо работать, что приводит к кризису потери права выкупа, будет очень трудно преодолеть.

18:17 So that's the bad news.

The question is: is there any good news? I'm supposed to be up here telling you the good news. Well, the good news, I think, is what I started with at the beginning of the Talk, which is that humans are not only smart; we're really inspirationally smart to the rest of the animals in the biological kingdom. Что ж, хорошая новость, я думаю, это то, с чего я начал в начале Разговора, а именно то, что люди не только умны; мы действительно вдохновляюще умны для остальных животных в биологическом царстве. We're so good at overcoming our biological limitations --you know, I flew over here in an airplane. Мы так хорошо преодолеваем наши биологические ограничения — вы знаете, я прилетел сюда на самолете. I didn't have to try to flap my wings. Мне не нужно было пытаться взмахнуть крыльями. I'm wearing contact lenses now so that I can see all of you. I don't have to rely on my own near-sightedness. Мне не нужно полагаться на собственную близорукость. We actually have all of these cases where we overcome our biological limitations through technology and other means, seemingly pretty easily. На самом деле у нас есть все эти случаи, когда мы преодолеваем наши биологические ограничения с помощью технологий и других средств, казалось бы, довольно легко. But we have to recognize that we have those limitations.

18:56 And here's the rub. 18:56 А вот и загвоздка.

It was Camus who once said that, "Man is the only species who refuses to be what he really is. "But the irony is that it might only be in recognizing our limitations that we can really actually overcome them. The hope is that you all will think about your limitations, not necessarily as unovercomable, but to recognize them, accept them and then use the world of design to actually figure them out. Мы надеемся, что вы все будете думать о своих ограничениях, не обязательно как о непреодолимых, но осознаете их, примете, а затем используете мир дизайна, чтобы понять их. That might be the only way that we will really be able to achieve our own human potential and really be the noble species we hope to all be. Это может быть единственным способом, которым мы действительно сможем реализовать свой человеческий потенциал и действительно стать тем благородным видом, которым мы все надеемся быть.

19:28 Thank you.