http___www.ted.com_talks_dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions_transcript_language_hr_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 14.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.9 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 16.10 16.11 16.12 16.13 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 17.11 17.12 17.13 17.14 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.18 17.19 17.20 17.21 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.11 18.12 18.13 18.14 18.15 18.16 18.17 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 19.17 19.18 19.19 19.20 19.21 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.10 20.11 20.12 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 23.9 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.13 23.14 23.15 23.16 24.1 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.10 26.11 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 28.1 29.1
Transcript 0:11 I'll tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. Not yours, of course -- other people's. (Laughter) 0:17 So after being at MIT for a few years, I realized that writing academic papers is not that exciting. You know, I don't know how many of those you read, but it's not fun to read and often not fun to write -- even worse to write. So I decided to try and write something more fun. And I came up with an idea that I will write a cookbook. And the title for my cookbook was going to be "Dining Without Crumbs: The Art of Eating Over the Sink." (Laughter) And it was going to be a look at life through the kitchen. And I was quite excited about this. I was going to talk a little bit about research, a little bit about the kitchen. You know, we do so much in the kitchen I thought this would be interesting. And I wrote a couple of chapters. And I took it to MIT press and they said, "Cute, but not for us. Go and find somebody else." I tried other people and everybody said the same thing, "Cute. Not for us." 1:10 Until somebody said, "Look, if you're serious about this, you first have to write a book about your research. You have to publish something, and then you'll get the opportunity to write something else. If you really want to do it you have to do it." So I said, "You know, I really don't want to write about my research. I do this all day long. I want to write something else. Something a bit more free, less constrained." And this person was very forceful and said, "Look. That's the only way you'll ever do it." So I said, "Okay, if I have to do it -- " I had a sabbatical. I said, "I'll write about my research if there is no other way. And then I'll get to do my cookbook." So I wrote a book on my research. 1:46 And it turned out to be quite fun in two ways. First of all, I enjoyed writing. But the more interesting thing was that I started learning from people. It's a fantastic time to write, because there is so much feedback you can get from people. People write me about their personal experience, and about their examples, and what they disagree, and nuances. And even being here -- I mean the last few days, I've known really heights of obsessive behavior I never thought about. (Laughter) Which I think is just fascinating. 2:17 I will tell you a little bit about irrational behavior. And I want to start by giving you some examples of visual illusion as a metaphor for rationality. So think about these two tables. And you must have seen this illusion. If I asked you what's longer, the vertical line on the table on the left, or the horizontal line on the table on the right? Which one seems longer? Can anybody see anything but the left one being longer? No, right? It's impossible. But the nice thing about visual illusion is we can easily demonstrate mistakes. So I can put some lines on; it doesn't help. I can animate the lines. And to the extent you believe I didn't shrink the lines, which I didn't, I've proven to you that your eyes were deceiving you. Now, the interesting thing about this is when I take the lines away, it's as if you haven't learned anything in the last minute. (Laughter) You can't look at this and say, "Okay now I see reality as it is." Right? It's impossible to overcome this sense that this is indeed longer. Our intuition is really fooling us in a repeatable, predictable, consistent way. And there is almost nothing we can do about it, aside from taking a ruler and starting to measure it. 3:24 Here is another one -- this is one of my favorite illusions. What do you see the color that top arrow is pointing to? Brown. Thank you. The bottom one? Yellow. Turns out they're identical. Can anybody see them as identical? Very very hard. I can cover the rest of the cube up. And if I cover the rest of the cube you can see that they are identical. And if you don't believe me you can get the slide later and do some arts and crafts and see that they're identical. But again it's the same story that if we take the background away, the illusion comes back. Right. There is no way for us not to see this illusion. I guess maybe if you're colorblind I don't think you can see that. I want you to think about illusion as a metaphor. 4:05 Vision is one of the best things we do. We have a huge part of our brain dedicated to vision -- bigger than dedicated to anything else. We do more vision more hours of the day than we do anything else. And we are evolutionarily designed to do vision. And if we have these predictable repeatable mistakes in vision, which we're so good at, what's the chance that we don't make even more mistakes in something we're not as good at -- for example, financial decision making: (Laughter) something we don't have an evolutionary reason to do, we don't have a specialized part of the brain, and we don't do that many hours of the day. And the argument is in those cases it might be the issue that we actually make many more mistakes and, worse, not have an easy way to see them. Because in visual illusions we can easily demonstrate the mistakes; in cognitive illusion it's much, much harder to demonstrate to people the mistakes. 4:53 So I want to show you some cognitive illusions, or decision-making illusions, in the same way. And this is one of my favorite plots in social sciences. It's from a paper by Johnson and Goldstein. And it basically shows the percentage of people who indicated they would be interested in giving their organs to donation. And these are different countries in Europe. And you basically see two types of countries: countries on the right, that seem to be giving a lot; and countries on the left that seem to giving very little, or much less. The question is, why? Why do some countries give a lot and some countries give a little? 5:29 When you ask people this question, they usually think that it has to be something about culture. Right? How much do you care about people? Giving your organs to somebody else is probably about how much you care about society, how linked you are. Or maybe it is about religion. But, if you look at this plot, you can see that countries that we think about as very similar actually exhibit very different behavior. For example, Sweden is all the way on the right, and Denmark, that we think is culturally very similar, is all the way on the left. Germany is on the left. And Austria is on the right. The Netherlands is on the left. And Belgium is on the right. And finally, depending on your particular version of European similarity, you can think about the U. K and France as either similar culturally or not. But it turns out that from organ donation they are very different. 6:18 By the way, the Netherlands is an interesting story. You see the Netherlands is kind of the biggest of the small group. Turns out that they got to 28 percent after mailing every household in the country a letter begging people to join this organ donation program. You know the expression, "Begging only gets you so far"? It's 28 percent in organ donation. 6:40 (Laughter) 6:42 But whatever the countries on the right are doing they are doing a much better job than begging. So what are they doing? Turns out the secret has to do with a form at the DMV. And here is the story. The countries on the left have a form at the DMV that looks something like this. Check the box below if you want to participate in the organ donor program. And what happens? People don't check, and they don't join. The countries on the right, the ones that give a lot, have a slightly different form. It says check the box below if you don't want to participate. Interestingly enough, when people get this, they again don't check -- but now they join. 7:18 (Laughter) 7:21 Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the driver's seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision. 8:25 Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us. 9:10 I'll give you one more example for this. This is from a paper by Redelmeier and Schaefer. And they said, "Well, this effect also happens to experts, people who are well-paid, experts in their decisions, do it a lot." And they basically took a group of physicians. And they presented to them a case study of a patient. Here is a patient. He is a 67-year-old farmer. He's been suffering from a right hip pain for a while. And then they said to the physician, "You decided a few weeks ago that nothing is working for this patient. All these medications, nothing seems to be working. So you refer the patient to hip replacement therapy. Hip replacement. Okay?" So the patient is on a path to have his hip replaced. And then they said to half the physicians, they said, "Yesterday you reviewed the patient's case and you realized that you forgot to try one medication. You did not try ibuprofen. What do you do? Do you pull the patient back and try ibuprofen? Or do you let them go and have hip replacement?" Well the good news is that most physicians in this case decided to pull the patient and try the ibuprofen. Very good for the physicians. 10:12 The other group of the physicians, they said, "Yesterday when you reviewed the case you discovered there were two medications you didn't try out yet, ibuprofen and piroxicam." And they said, "You have two medications you didn't try out yet. What do you do? You let them go. Or you pull them back. And if you pull them back do you try ibuprofen or piroxicam? Which one?" Now think of it. This decision makes it as easy to let the patient continue with hip replacement. But pulling them back, all of the sudden becomes more complex. There is one more decision. What happens now? Majority of the physicians now choose to let the patient go to hip replacement. I hope this worries you, by the way -- (Laughter) when you go to see your physician. The thing is is that no physician would ever say, "Piroxicam, ibuprofen, hip replacement. Let's go for hip replacement." But the moment you set this as the default it has a huge power over whatever people end up doing. 11:05 I'll give you a couple of more examples on irrational decision-making. Imagine I give you a choice. Do you want to go for a weekend to Rome? All expenses paid: hotel, transportation, food, breakfast, a continental breakfast, everything. Or a weekend in Paris? Now, a weekend in Paris, a weekend in Rome, these are different things; they have different food, different culture, different art. Now imagine I added a choice to the set that nobody wanted. Imagine I said, "A weekend in Rome, a weekend in Paris, or having your car stolen?" (Laughter) It's a funny idea, because why would having your car stolen, in this set, influence anything? (Laughter) But what if the option to have your car stolen was not exactly like this. What if it was a trip to Rome, all expenses paid, transportation, breakfast, but doesn't include coffee in the morning. If you want coffee you have to pay for it yourself. It's two euros 50. Now in some ways, given that you can have Rome with coffee, why would you possibly want Rome without coffee? It's like having your car stolen. It's an inferior option. But guess what happened. The moment you add Rome without coffee, Rome with coffee becomes more popular. And people choose it. The fact that you have Rome without coffee makes Rome with coffee look superior, and not just to Rome without coffee -- even superior to Paris. (Laughter) 12:29 Here are two examples of this principle. This was an ad from The Economist a few years ago that gave us three choices. An online subscription for 59 dollars. A print subscription for 125. Or you could get both for 125. (Laughter) Now I looked at this and I called up The Economist. And I tried to figure out what were they thinking. And they passed me from one person to another to another, until eventually I got to a person who was in charge of the website. And I called them up. And they went to check what was going on. The next thing I know, the ad is gone. And no explanation. 13:06 So I decided to do the experiment that I would have loved The Economist to do with me. I took this and I gave it to 100 MIT students. I said, "What would you choose?" These are the market share. Most people wanted the combo deal. Thankfully nobody wanted the dominated option. That means our students can read. (Laughter) But now if you have an option that nobody wants, you can take it off. Right? So I printed another version of this, where I eliminated the middle option. I gave it to another 100 students. Here is what happens. Now the most popular option became the least popular. And the least popular became the most popular. 13:42 What was happening was the option that was useless, in the middle, was useless in the sense that nobody wanted it. But it wasn't useless in the sense that it helped people figure out what they wanted. In fact, relative to the option in the middle, which was get only the print for 125, the print and web for 125 looked like a fantastic deal. And as a consequence, people chose it. The general idea here, by the way, is that we actually don't know our preferences that well. And because we don't know our preferences that well we're susceptible to all of these influences from the external forces: the defaults, the particular options that are presented to us, and so on. 14:21 One more example of this. People believe that when we deal with physical attraction, we see somebody, and we know immediately whether we like them or not, attracted or not. Which is why we have these four-minute dates. So I decided to do this experiment with people. I'll show you graphic images of people -- not real people. The experiment was with people. I showed some people a picture of Tom, and a picture of Jerry. I said "Who do you want to date? Tom or Jerry?" But for half the people I added an ugly version of Jerry. I took Photoshop and I made Jerry slightly less attractive. (Laughter) The other people, I added an ugly version of Tom. And the question was, will ugly Jerry and ugly Tom help their respective, more attractive brothers? The answer was absolutely yes. When ugly Jerry was around, Jerry was popular. When ugly Tom was around, Tom was popular. 15:13 (Laughter) 15:15 This of course has two very clear implications for life in general. If you ever go bar hopping, who do you want to take with you? (Laughter) You want a slightly uglier version of yourself. (Laughter) Similar. Similar ... but slightly uglier. (Laughter) The second point, or course, is that if somebody else invites you, you know how they think about you. (Laughter) Now you're getting it. 15:49 What is the general point? The general point is that when we think about economics we have this beautiful view of human nature. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason!" We have this view of ourselves, of others. The behavioral economics perspective is slightly less generous to people. In fact in medical terms, that's our view. (Laughter) But there is a silver lining. The silver lining is, I think, kind of the reason that behavioral economics is interesting and exciting. Are we Superman? Or are we Homer Simpson? 16:25 When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use obviously. (Laughter) We understand our limitations, and we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way, we could design a better world. And that, I think, is the hope of this thing. 17:01 Thank you very much. 17:03 (Applause)
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 16.10 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.10 18.11 18.12 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.10 20.11 20.12 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 21.9 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13 22.14 22.15 22.16 22.17 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.10 26.11 26.12 26.13 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.6 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 31.1 32.1
Transcript Translated by Dijana Ivezic Reviewed by Tajni Prevodilac 0:11 Ispričat ću vam nešto o iracionalnom ponašanju. Naravno, ne vašem. Drugih ljudi. (smijeh) 0:17 Nakon nekoliko godina boravka na MIT-u, shvatio sam da pisanje akademskih članaka i nije baš tako uzbudljivo. Ne znam koliko ste ih pročitali, ali nije ih zabavno čitati, a vrlo često ni pisati. Pisati je još gore. Tako sam odlučio pokušati napisati nešto zabavnije. Palo mi je na pamet napisati kuharicu čiji je naslov trebao biti "Jesti bez mrvica: Umijeće jedenja iznad sudopera" (smijeh) To je trebao biti pogled na život kroz kuhinju i zaista sam bio uzbuđen u vezi toga. Namjeravao sam malo govoriti o istraživanju, a malo o kuhinji. Znate, toliko toga radimo u kuhinji, pa sam mislio da bi to moglo biti zanimljivo. Napisao sam nekoliko poglavlja i odnio ih u MIT Press gdje su rekli: "Zgodno, ali nije za nas. Potražite nekog drugog." Pokušao sam drugdje i svi su mi rekli isto: "Zgodno, ali ne za nas." 1:10 Sve dok netko nije rekao: "Gledajte, ako ste ozbiljni u vezi ovoga, najprije morate napisati knjigu o svom istraživanju. Morate nešto objaviti, a onda ćete dobiti priliku pisati nešto drugo. Ako to zbilja želite, morat ćete tako učiniti." Pa sam rekao: "Znate, ja ne želim pisati o svom istraživanju. To radim po cijele dane. Želim pisati nešto drugo. Nešto malo slobodnije, manje ograničeno. No, ta je osoba bila prilično ustrajna i rekla: "Gledajte, to je jedini način na koji možete uspjeti." Rekao sam: "OK, ako baš moram..." Uzeo sam slobodnu godinu i rekao "Pisat ću o svom istraživanju ako nema drugog načina. A onda ću napisati kuharicu." I tako sam napisao knjigu o svom istraživanju. 1:46 Ispalo je prilično zabavno, na dva načina. Prije svega, uživao sam pišući. No, zanimljivija stvar je bila ta da sam počeo učiti od drugih ljudi. Ovo je sjajno vrijeme za pisanje jer vam ljudi mogu dati puno povratnih informacija. Ljudi mi pišu o svom osobnom iskustvu o vlastitim primjerima, s čime se ne slažu i slično. Čak i dok sam ovdje, jer mi se čini da sam u zadnjih par dana spoznao stvarne mogućnosti opsesivnog ponašanja na kakve nisam ni pomišljao. (smijeh) Mislim da je to očaravajuće. 2:17 Reći ću vam nešto o iracionalnom ponašanju i započet ću primjerima nekih optičkih iluzija kao metaforama za racionalnost. Razmislite o ova dva stola. Sigurno ste već vidjeli ovu iluziju. Kada bih vas pitao što je dulje: okomita linija stola na lijevoj strani ili vodoravna linija stola na desnoj strani? Koja se čini duljom? Vidi li itko drukčije nego da je lijeva dulja? Ne, zar ne? To je nemoguće. No, dobra stvar u vezi optičkih iluzija je da lako možemo pokazati greške pa tako mogu dodati crte, ali ne pomažu. Mogu animirati crte sve do te mjere da mislite da ih nisam smanjio, što ni nisam, ali sam dokazao da vas vaše oči varaju. Zanimljivo je to da kada maknem ove crte ispada kao da ništa niste naučili u protekloj minuti. (smijeh) Ne možete pogledati ovo i reći "OK, sada vidim stvarnost takvu kakva je." Točno? Nemoguće je nadvladati osjećaj da je ovo zbilja dulje. Naša nas intuicija svaki put iznova prevari na ponavljajući, predvidljiv i dosljedan način. Ne možemo učiniti ništa u vezi s tim osim uzeti ravnalo i početi mjeriti. 3:24 Evo još jedne. Ovo je jedna od mojih omiljenih iluzija. Na koju boju pokazuje gornja strelica? Smeđu. Hvala vam. A donja? Na žutu. Ispada da su identične. Vidi li itko da su identične? Vrlo, vrlo teško. Mogu pokriti ostatak kocke i ako to učinim, vidite da su identične. Ako mi ne vjerujete, možete poslije dobiti slide i malo čarobirati pa vidjeti da su zbilja identične. No, to je opet ista priča. Ako maknemo podlogu, iluzija se vraća, zar ne? Ne možemo ne vidjeti ovu iluziju. Možda ju ne vidite jedino ako ste daltonist. Želio bih da iluziju shvatite kao metaforu. 4:05 Vid je jedna od najboljih stvari koju imamo. Ogroman dio mozga posvećen je vidu, više nego ičemu drugome. Bavimo se gledanjem više sati dnevno nego ijednom drugom aktivnošću i evolucijski smo osmišljeni da bismo gledali. Ako u vidu, u kojem smo tako dobri, stalno ponavljamo jedne te iste predvidljive pogreške, kolike su šanse da ne radimo još veće pogreške u nečemu u čemu nismo toliko dobri, naprimjer, u financijskom odlučivanju (smijeh) za koje nemamo evolucijske predispozicije, nemamo specijalizirani dio mozga i ne radimo to veći dio dana. U tim slučajevima, argument može biti da upravo zato radimo puno više pogrešaka. Što je još gore, ne možemo ih samo tako prepoznati jer kod optičkih iluzija možemo lako pokazati greške dok je kod kognitivnih iluzija puno, puno teže ljudima pokazati pogreške. 4:53 Želim vam pokazati neke kognitivne iluzije odnosno iluzije donošenja odluka. Ovo je jedna od mojih omiljenih tema u društvenim znanostima, a dio je članka Johnsona i Goldsteina. Ta iluzija zapravo pokazuje postotak ljudi koji su izrazili želju za doniranjem organa u različitim europskim državama. Zapravo vidite dvije vrste država: Države s desne strane, koje naizgled puno doniraju i države s lijeve strane koje doniraju vrlo malo ili puno manje od prvih. Pitanje je zašto? Zašto neke zemlje doniraju u velikoj mjeri, a neke vrlo malo? 5:29 Kada postavite ovo pitanje, ljudi obično misle da je to vezano uz kulturu. Zar ne? Koliko vam je stalo do ljudi? Doniranje organa je vjerojatno pitanje brige o društvu i povezanosti. A možda je i pitanje vjere. Ako pogledate ovaj graf, možete vidjeti da se države koje smatramo sličnima zapravo vrlo različito ponašaju. Naprimjer, Švedska je sasvim desno, a Danska, koju smatramo kulturološki vrlo sličnom, je sasvim lijevo. Njemačka je lijevo, a Austrija desno; Nizozemska je lijevo, a Belgija desno; i konačno, ovisno o vašoj osobnoj verziji europske sličnosti možete Veliku Britaniju i Francusku smatrati kulturološki sličnom ili ne, ali ispada da su u doniranju organa vrlo različite. 6:18 Vrlo je zanimljiva priča u vezi Nizozemske. Ona je najveća unutar male grupe, ispada da su dobili 28% nakon što su svakom kućanstvu u državi poslali pismo s molbom za učlanjenje u program doniranja organa. No, moliti ne znači i dobiti. Dakle, 28% bi doniralo organe. 6:42 Što god radile države s desne strane, sigurno je bolje nego samo moliti. Što one rade? Ispostavilo se da je tajna u obrascu za popunjavanje. Priča ide ovako: Države s lijeva imaju obrazac koji izgleda otprilike ovako. Označite kućicu ako želite sudjelovati u programu doniranja organa. Što se događa? Ljudi ju ne označe i ne sudjeluju. Države s desna, one koje puno doniraju, imaju malo drukčiji obrazac. U njemu piše: označite kućicu ako ne želite sudjelovati. Zanimljivo je da, kada ljudi dobiju takav obrazac, opet ne označe kućicu - ali sada sudjeluju. 7:21 Razmislite što to znači. Ujutro se probudimo i osjećamo da donosimo odluke. Probudimo se, otvorimo ormar i osjećamo da sami odlučujemo što ćemo obući. Onda otvorimo frižider i osjećamo da sami odlučujemo što ćemo jesti. Sve to zapravo znači da velik dio ovih odluka ne dolazi iz nas samih, već od osobe koja je osmislila taj obrazac. Kada uđete u DMV, osoba koja je osmislila obrazac imat će ogroman utjecaj na vaše ponašanje. Vrlo je teško predvidjeti te rezultate. Razmislite samo koliko vas vjeruje da, ako biste sutra krenuli produžiti vozačku dozvolu, otišli u DMV i susreli se s jednim od tih obrazaca, da bi oni zapravo promijenili vaše ponašanje? Vrlo je teško zamisliti da bi to imalo ikakav utjecaj na nas. Možemo reći: "Oh, ti smiješni Europljani. Naravno da bi utjecali na njih." No, kada smo mi u pitanju, imamo osjećaj da smo na mjestu vozača, i da držimo sve pod kontrolom i da mi donosimo odluku. Vrlo je teško prihvatiti ideju da zapravo imamo iluziju donošenja odluke, umjesto samog odlučivanja. 8:25 Sada biste mogli reći: "To su odluke za koje nas nije briga." Zapravo su to po definiciji odluke o nečemu što će nam se dogoditi nakon što umremo. Zašto bi nas bilo briga za nešto što će se dogoditi nakon što umremo? Prosječni bi ekonomist, netko tko vjeruje u racionalnost, rekao: "Znate što? Trošak uzimanja olovke i stavljanja kvačice veći je od moguće koristi od ove odluke." Tako nastaje ovaj efekt. Zapravo, nije samo jednostavnost u pitanju, nije tako trivijalno, nije da nam nije stalo. Upravo je suprotno - zato što nam je stalo. Teško je i složeno, toliko složeno da ne znamo što učiniti. I zato što nemamo pojma što bismo, jednostavno odabiremo ono što je već unaprijed određeno. 9:10 Dat ću vam još jedan primjer, ovoga puta iz članka Redelmeiera i Schaefera. Oni kažu: "Ovaj efekt često viđamo i kod stručnjaka, ljudi koji su dobro plaćeni, stručnjaka u svojim odlukama, svima se to često događa." Uzeli su grupu liječnika i predstavili im slučaj jednoga pacijenta. Ovo je pacijent, 67-godišnji poljoprivrednik kojega već neko vrijeme muči bol u desnom kuku. Tada su rekli liječnicima: "Prije nekoliko tjedana odlučili ste da ovom pacijentu ništa ne pomaže. Svi ti silni lijekovi, ništa ne funkcionira. Predložili ste mu operaciju ugradnje umjetnog kuka. Dakle, umjetni kuk. Pacijent je u procesu pripreme za operaciju. Tada su polovini liječnika rekli: Jučer ste ponovno pregledali slučaj ovog pacijenta i shvatili da ste zaboravili isprobati jedan lijek, ibuprofen. Što ćete učiniti? Povući pacijenta i pokušati s ibuprofenom ili ga pustiti da ode na ugradnju umjetnog kuka?" Dobra vijest je da je većina liječnika u ovom slučaju odlučila povući pacijenta i pokušati s ibuprofenom. Vrlo dobro, liječnici. 10:12 Drugoj grupi liječnika su rekli: "Jučer kada ste ponovno pregledali slučaj, otkrili ste da niste još isprobali dva lijeka, ibuprofen i piroksikam." Pa su rekli:"Imate dva lijeka koja još niste isprobali. Što ćete učiniti? Puštate ih na operaciju ili povlačite. Ako ih povučete, hoćete li probati s ibuprofenom ili piroksikamom? S kojim? Razmislite sada o ovoj odluci. Ona vrlo lako omogućava pacijentu nastavak ugradnje umjetnog kuka. No, ako ih vratimo natrag, odjednom sve postaje puno složenije. To je još jedna odluka. Što se sada događa? Sada većina liječnika odlučuje pacijenta pustiti na ugradnju umjetnog kuka. Usput, nadam se da vas ovo brine... (smijeh) kada odlazite svome liječniku. Stvar je u tome da nijedan liječnik ne bi rekao: "Piroksikam, ibuprofen, ugradnja umjetnog kuka - biram umjetni kuk." No, u trenutku kada je to već unaprijed određeno, ima veliku moć nad ljudskim ponašanjem. 11:05 Dat ću vam još nekoliko primjera iracionalnog odlučivanja. Zamislite da imate sljedeći izbor: Želite li ići u Rim za vikend? Svi troškovi su plaćeni, hotel, prijevoz, hrana, doručak, kontinentalni doručak - sve. Ili vikend u Parizu? Vikend u Parizu i vikend u Rimu su dvije sasvim različite stvari; drukčija je hrana, kultura, umjetnost. Zamislite sada da sam u ponudu dodao još jednu mogućnost koju nitko nije želio. Zamislite da sam rekao: "Vikend u Rimu, vikend u Parizu ili da vam ukradu auto?" (smijeh) To je smiješna ideja. Zašto bi krađa automobila u ovoj kombinaciji imala ikakav utjecaj? (smijeh) No, što ako opcija krađe automobila nije baš ovakva. Što ako se radi o putovanju u Rim sa plaćenim svim troškovima, prijevozom i doručkom, ali bez jutarnje kave. Ako želite kavu, morat ćete ju sami platiti 2,50 eura. Ako to gledamo tako da imate opciju Rim+kava, zašto biste željeli Rim bez kave? To je kao željeti da vam ukradu auto - to je neravnopravna opcija. Pogodite što se dogodilo. U trenutku kada ste dodali Rim bez kave, Rim s kavom postaje popularniji i ljudi biraju njega. Činjenica da postoji i Rim bez kave, predstavlja Rim s kavom superiornijim i to ne samo u usporedbi s Rimom bez kave, već i s Parizom. (smijeh) 12:29 Evo dva primjera. Ovo je bio oglas u časopisu The Economist prije nekoliko godina i nudio je tri izbora: online pretplatu za 59 dolara pretplatu na tiskano izdanje za 125 dolara ili oboje za 125 dolara. (smijeh) Kada sam to vidio, nazvao sam u The Economist i pokušao dokučiti o čemu to oni razmišljaju. "Vozali" su me od čovjeka do čovjeka sve dok napokon nisam došao do osobe koja je bila zadužena za website. Pozvao sam ih i provjerili su o čemu se radilo. Sljedeće što sam čuo je da je oglas nestao bez objašnjenja. 13:06 Odlučio sam napraviti eksperiment a volio bih da ga i The Economist isproba sa mnom. Uzeo sam oglas i dao ga stotini studenata s MIT-a. Rekao sam: "Što biste odabrali?" To su tržišni udjeli i većina je ljudi željela kombiniranu ponudu. Srećom, nitko nije htio dominantnu opciju, što znači da naši studenti znaju čitati. (smijeh) No, ako imate opciju koju nitko ne želi, možete ju maknuti, zar ne? Ispisao sam drugu verziju oglasa u kojoj sam eliminirao srednju opciju. Dao sam ga drugoj stotini studenata i pogledajte što se dogodilo. Sada je najpopularnija opcija postala najmanje popularna, i obrnuto. 13:42 Dogodilo se to da je ona opcija koja je bila u sredini bila beskorisna jer ju nitko nije želio. No, bila je i korisna jer je pomogla ljudima odlučiti što žele. Zapravo, u odnosu na srednju opciju, koja se odnosila isključivo na tiskano izdanje za 125 dolara, tiskano i web izdanje zajedno za istu cijenu činilo se kao odlična ponuda. Naravno, ljudi su to i odabrali. Opća ideja je da zapravo ne znamo tako dobro svoje želje. Upravo zato smo podložni svim tim vanjskim utjecajima, unaprijed određenim postavkama, određenim opcijama koje su nam na raspolaganju itd. 14:21 Još jedan primjer. Kada je riječ o fizičkoj privlačnosti, ljudi vjeruju da čim nekoga ugledamo, odmah znamo sviđa li nam se ili ne, privlači li nas ili ne. Zbog toga postoje tzv. "speed-dates". Odlučio sam napraviti eksperiment s ljudima. Pokazat ću vam grafičke prikaze ljudi, ne stvarne ljude, ali eksperiment je bio s ljudima. Pokazao sam im Tomovu i Jerryjevu sliku i rekao: "S kim želite izići, s Tomom ili Jerryjem?" Jednoj grupi ljudi sam dodao ružniju verziju Jerryja. U Photoshopu sam ga učinio malo manje privlačnim. (smijeh) Drugoj grupi sam dodao ružniju verziju Toma. Pitanje je bilo hoće li ružniji Jerry i Tom biti od pomoći svojoj privlačnijoj braći. Odgovor je bio - naravno da hoće. Kada bih ubacio ružnijeg Jerryja, Jerry je bio popularan. Kada bih dodao ružnijeg Toma, Tom je bio popularan. 15:15 To nam, naravno, govori dvije jasne stvari o životu općenito. Kada idete po kafićima, koga biste željeli povesti? (smijeh) Želite svoju malo ružniju verziju. (smijeh) Vrlo sličnu, ali malo ružniju. (smijeh) Druga stvar je ta da, ako netko drugi pozove vas, znate što misli o vama. (smijeh) Sada vam je već jasno. 15:49 Koja je poanta? Poanta je u tome da, kada razmišljamo o ekonomiji, imamo u vidu ovaj dio ljudske prirode. "Kakvo je remek-djelo čovjek! Kako plemenit umom!" Tako vidimo sebe, a i druge. Viđenje bihevioralne ekonomije nešto je manje velikodušno prema ljudima. Zapravo, medicinski rečeno, to je naš pogled. (smijeh) No, postoji tračak nade što je i razlog zbog kojeg je bihevioralna ekonomija tako zanimljiva i uzbudljiva. Jesmo li Superman ili Homer Simpson? 16:25 Kada je riječ o izgradnji fizičkog svijeta, donekle razumijemo svoja ograničenja. Gradimo stepenice, ali i one stvari koje očito ne mogu svi koristiti. (smijeh) Svjesni smo svojih ograničenja i krećemo se unutar njih. No, kada je riječ o mentalnom svijetu, kada kreiramo stvari poput zdravstvenog i mirovinskog osiguranja i burzi, nekako, iz nekog razloga, zaboravljamo da smo ograničeni. Kada bismo razumjeli svoja kognitivna ograničenja na način na koji razumijemo fizička, iako se ne susrećemo s njima na isti način, mislim da bismo mogli osmisliti bolji svijet. Tome se nadamo. 17:01 Puno vam hvala. 17:03 pljesak