|
演说者：Helen Fisher 演说题目：科技并没有改变爱，为什么？ 在这个科技导向、互连的世界，我们发展出求爱新招及新规则，然而爱的本质却不曾改变，Helen 如是说。她在这场活力充沛、巨细靡遗的演讲中，以第一手资料解释：更快速度的连结反而产生步调更慢、更亲密的关系。 科技并没有改变爱，为什么？ 来自TED英语演说 00:00 19:13 I was recently traveling in the Highlandsof New Guinea, and I was talking with a man who had three wives. I asked him,'How many wives would you like to have?' And there was this longpause, and I thought to myself, 'Is he going to say five? Is he going tosay 10? Is he going to say 25?' And he leaned towards me and he whispered,'None.' 最近，我正在新几内亚高地旅行我访谈了一位有三个老婆的人我问他：“你想要多少个老婆？”他停顿了很长时间我就想 “他会说5个？还是10个？或许是25个呢？“” 结果他靠过来 小声说道：“一个都不想要。” Eighty-six percent of human societiespermit a man to have several wives: polygyny. But in the vast majority of thesecultures, only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives.Having several partners can be a toothache. In fact, co-wives can fight witheach other, sometimes they can even poison each other's children. And you'vegot to have a lot of cows, a lot of goats, a lot of money, a lot of land, inorder to build a harem. 当今，86%的人类社会允许男人有好几个妻子：一夫多妻。但在大多数这些社会中，有多个妻子的男性仅达5%~10%。有多个伴侣可是件头疼的事。事实上，妻子们之间会产生争执，有时甚至会毒害对方的孩子。而且你必须得有很多的牛羊大量金钱和土地，才能建立起一个妻妾成群的闺房。 We are a pair-bonding species. Ninety-sevenpercent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young; human beings do. I'm notsuggesting that we're not -- that we're necessarily sexually faithful to ourpartners. I've looked at adultery in 42 cultures, I understand, actually, someof the genetics of it, and some of the brain circuitry of it. It's very commonaround the world, but we are built to love. 我们是双纽带的种群。97%的哺乳动物不用成双成对地抚育儿女，但人类却是这样的。我并不是建议人类在性方面无需忠诚彼此，但在研究了42种文化中的外遇行为之后，我明白了，其中有基因的原因，而有一些则是大脑回路的问题，整个世界都非常普遍，但爱是我们与生俱来的能力。 How is technology changing love? I'm goingto say almost not at all. I study the brain. I and my colleagues have put over100 people into a brain scanner -- people who had just fallen happily in love,people who had just been rejected in love and people who are in love long-term.And it is possible to remain 'in love' long-term. 科技改变了爱吗？我认为没有。我从事大脑研究，我和我的同事们对100多人进行了大脑扫描，包括那些刚刚陷入爱情的人、在爱情里受挫的人以及长期沉浸在爱之中的人。是的，长期处于热恋期是有可能的。 And I've long agomaintained that we've evolved three distinctly different brain systems formating and reproduction: sex drive, feelings of intense romantic love andfeelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner. And together, thesethree brain systems -- with many other parts of the brain -- orchestrate oursexual, our romantic and our family lives. 很早之前我就说过人类在求爱和繁殖过程中进化出了三个截然不同的大脑系统：性驱动、感受浓烈的浪漫以及对长期伴侣深层的强烈的依赖感。这三种大脑系统和大脑中的其他部分结合起来，控制着人类性、爱情以及家庭生活。 But they lie way below the cortex, waybelow the limbic system where we feel our emotions, generate our emotions. Theylie in the most primitive parts of the brain, linked with energy, focus,craving, motivation, wanting and drive. In this case, the drive to win life'sgreatest prize: a mating partner. They evolved over 4.4 million years ago amongour first ancestors, and they're not going to change if you swipe left or righton Tinder. 但它们深藏在皮层下，在边缘系统下，即人类感受情感发泄情绪的区域。它们位于大脑中最原始的位置，和能量、注意力、渴望度、动力、欲望及能动性相连。在这里便是为了赢得人生最大奖的动力：一位配偶。这些大脑系统早在440万年前就从人类最早的祖先中演化而来，而不管你怎么在Tinder（社交软件）上滑屏，它们都不会发生变化。 There's no question that technology ischanging the way we court: emailing, texting, emojis to express your emotions,sexting, 'liking' a photograph, selfies ... We're seeing new rulesand taboos for how to court. But, you know -- is this actually dramaticallychanging love? What about the late 1940s, when the automobile became verypopular and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms? 可以肯定的一点是科技正在改变人类的求爱方式。电子邮件、短信、表达情感的符号、色情短信、给照片或自拍点赞... 关于如何求爱有了新的规则和禁忌，但是，这真的彻底改变了爱吗？来看看上个世纪40年代，那时候汽车刚大行其道，顿时人们便有了“可移动卧室”。 How about the introduction of the birthcontrol pill? Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin,women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality. 再来看看引进避孕药的时代，因为意外怀孕而导致人生从此惨淡的日子一去不复返。女性终于可以释放她们最原始的性本能。 Even dating sites are not changing love.I'm Chief Scientific Advisor to Match.com, I've been it for 11 years. I keeptelling them and they agree with me, that these are not dating sites, they areintroducing sites. 就连征婚网站的出现都没有改变爱。我在Match.com作首席科学顾问已经11年了，我一直宣导，而工作人员也认同我的意见。即这并不是一个征婚网站，这是个介绍网站。 When you sit down in a bar, in a coffee house, on a parkbench, your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened, andyou smile and laugh and listen and parade the way our ancestors did 100,000years ago. We can give you various people -- all the dating sites can -- butthe only real algorithm is your own human brain. Technology is not going tochange that. 当你走进酒吧、咖啡馆或坐在公园的长椅时，你的大脑会立即开始反应，就像一只沉睡的猫被唤醒一样。你开始微笑，大笑，试着倾听，用那些早在10万年前我们的祖先就使用的方式来炫耀。我们可以提供各式各样的对象，所有的征婚网站都可以，但唯一真实的算法却是你的大脑，科技改变不了这一点。 Technology is also not going to change whoyou choose to love. I study the biology of personality, and I've come tobelieve that we've evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving,linked with the dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen systems. 同样它也改变不了你的择偶对象。我研究生物心理学，我开始相信人类已经进化出了四个广义的思考及行为方式，和多巴胺、血清素、睾丸激素和雌激素系统相关联。 So Icreated a questionnaire directly from brain science to measure the degree towhich you express the traits -- the constellation of traits -- linked with eachof these four brain systems. I then put that questionnaire on various datingsites in 40 countries. Fourteen million or more people have now taken thequestionnaire, and I've been able to watch who's naturally drawn to whom. 于是，基于脑科学原理，我设计了一份问卷用来衡量人们表达特征的程度——各种特征——与这四种大脑系统的关联性在40个国家的各种征婚网站上刊登了这份问卷。目前，已有1400多万人参与了问卷调查，我有幸可以观察那些天生相互吸引的人。 And as it turns out, those who were veryexpressive of the dopamine system tend to be curious, creative, spontaneous,energetic -- I would imagine there's an awful lot of people like that in thisroom -- they're drawn to people like themselves. Curious, creative people needpeople like themselves. People who are very expressive of the serotonin systemtend to be traditional, conventional, they follow the rules, they respectauthority, they tend to be religious -- religiosity is in the serotonin system-- and traditional people go for traditional people. In that way, similarityattracts. 结果是那些多巴胺系统反应活跃的人更有好奇心，富有创意，自然率真，且精力充沛。我想现场在座肯定有很多人属于这一类型，他们通常被同类人所吸引。好奇且有创意的人需要和同类在一起。那些血清素系统反应活跃的人往往更加传统，遵循惯例与规则，尊重权威 他们通常笃信宗教 —宗教信仰正属于血清素系统— 传统派自然找传统派的人 如此一来，是同类相吸。 In the other two cases, opposites attract. People very expressive ofthe testosterone system tend to be analytical, logical, direct, decisive, andthey go for their opposite: they go for somebody who's high estrogen, somebodywho's got very good verbal skills and people skills, who's very intuitive andwho's very nurturing and emotionally expressive. We have natural patterns ofmate choice. Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love. 而其他两种情况则完全相反，对立性才有吸引力。睾丸激素系统反应活跃的人通常善于分析、逻辑思维强、直接、果断，而他们寻找的是和他们对立的人，那些雌激素高的人，他们语言能力很强、善于处理人际关系、凭直觉行事且善于照顾他人，且直抒胸怀。人类择偶有自然模式，现代技术不会改变我们选择的对象。 But technology is producing one moderntrend that I find particularly important. It's associated with the concept ofparadox of choice. For millions of years, we lived in little hunting andgathering groups. You didn't have the opportunity to choose between 1,000people on a dating site. 但科技正在制造一种当代潮流。我认为它尤为重要。它和选择悖论这一概念相关千万年来，人类都生活在小型狩猎及采集社会，那时的人没有机会在社交网站上千里挑一选择对象。 In fact, I've been studying this recently, and Iactually think there's some sort of sweet spot in the brain; I don't know whatit is, but apparently, from reading a lot of the data, we can embrace aboutfive to nine alternatives, and after that, you get into what academics call'cognitive overload,' and you don't choose any. 事实上，从我最近对此的研究来看，我认为大脑中有某种“最佳状态点” 。虽然我并不知道在哪儿，但从大量数据来看人类只能接受大概5~9个选项。在此之后，会变成某些学者称的“认知超载” 。结果是不再做出选择。 So I've come to think that due to thiscognitive overload, we're ushering in a new form of courtship that I call'slow love.' I arrived at this during my work with Match.com. Everyyear for the last six years, we've done a study called 'Singles inAmerica.' We don't poll the Match population, we poll the Americanpopulation. We use 5,000-plus people, a representative sample of Americansbased on the US census.于是，我想正是由于这种认 知超载我们引进了一种新型求爱方式，我称其为“慢慢爱”。这些都是我在 Match.com工作时总结出来的。过去六年中，我们做了一项研究名为“美国单身” 我们民调的对象不仅针对Match.com的会员，而是整个美国人口。我们调查了5000多人，这是基于美国统计局的代表性样本。 We've got data now on over 30,000 people,and every single year, I see some of the same patterns. Every single year whenI ask the question, over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand -- notnecessarily last year, but in their lives -- 50 percent have had a friends withbenefits during the course of their lives, and over 50 percent have lived witha person long-term before marrying. 目前已收集了超过3万人的数据。每年我都看到同样的模式，向他们提问的结果是超过50%的人有一夜情的经历，并不一定是上一年，而是他们一生中，在他们的有生之年50%的人曾经和朋友上过床。超过50%的人在婚前有过长期同居的经历。 Americans think that this is reckless. Ihave doubted that for a long time; the patterns are too strong. There's got tobe some Darwinian explanation -- Not that many people are crazy. 美国人认为这是轻率的行为，但我一直不这么认为，毕竟这种模式太普遍，肯定有某种类似于达尔文生物进化的地方。总不会是那么多人都丧失了理智？ And I stumbled, then, on a statistic thatreally came home to me. It was a very interesting academic article in which Ifound that 67 percent of singles in America today who are living long-term withsomebody, have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce. They'reterrified of the social, legal, emotional, economic consequences of divorce. So I came to realize that I don't think this is recklessness; I think it'scaution. 结果我发现了一个震惊的数据，一篇极其有趣的学术文章发现67%的处于长期同居的美国未婚人士，之所以还未结婚是因为担心离婚。他们担心离婚后面对的社会、法律、情感以及经济后果。于是 我认识到这并不是轻率的行为，而是谨慎。 Today's singles want to know every single thing about a partner beforethey wed. You learn a lot between the sheets, not only about how somebody makeslove, but whether they're kind, whether they can listen and at my age, whetherthey've got a sense of humor. 如今，人们在结婚之前想对其伴侣的每一个细节了如指掌，同居能让人了解到许多事情，不仅是对方的床上功夫，而是对方是否善良、是否善于倾听以及到了我这个年纪所关心的，就是对方是否有幽默感。 And in an age where we have too manychoices, we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease and we've got nofeeling of shame for sex before marriage, I think people are taking their timeto love. 当今社会人们有很多选择，很少为怀孕或疾病感到担忧。且对婚前性行为毫无愧疚感，在这种情况下人们选择爱得慢一些。 And actually, what's happening is, whatwe're seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage before you tie theknot. Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship, now it's thefinale. But the human brain -- 而真实情况是这其实是婚前准备阶段的实际延伸。从前，婚姻意味着一段感情的开始。而现在它意味着尾声，但人类大脑 The human brain always triumphs, andindeed, in the United States today, 86 percent of Americans will marry by age49. And even in cultures around the world where they're not marrying as often,they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner. 人类大脑总是胜出者。如今，在美国 86%的美国人将在49岁结婚，即便在世界上结婚率不高的文化里，最终他们也会和长期伴侣安定下来。 So it began to occur to me: during this longextension of the precommitment stage, if you can get rid of bad relationshipsbefore you marry, maybe we're going to see more happy marriages. So I did astudy of 1,100 married people in America -- not on Match.com, of course -- andI asked them a lot of questions. But one of the questions was, 'Would youre-marry the person you're currently married to?' And 81 percent said,'Yes.' 于是我突然想到：在这个长期婚前准备期，如果你在婚前摆脱了一段糟糕的情感关系或许就会有更多美满的婚姻。于是，我研究了美国1100位已婚人士，当然不是在Match.com上。我问了很多问题其中一个是如果再给你一次机会，你还会选择和现在的伴侣结婚吗？ 81%的人说，会！ In fact, the greatest change in modernromance and family life is not technology. It's not even slow love. It's actuallywomen piling into the job market in cultures around the world. For millions ofyears, our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups. Womencommuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables. They came home with 60to 80 percent of the evening meal. The double-income family was the rule. Andwomen were regarded as just as economically, socially and sexually powerful asmen. 事实上当今的情感和家庭生活最大的变化不是科技造成的，甚至也不是“慢慢爱”的结果。而是在全世界范围内大量女性进入职场的结果。几百万年以来我们的祖先都生活在小型捕猎采集社会，女性忙于采摘，餐桌上60%~80%的食物是由她们带回来的。双份收入家庭是一般法则，女性不论在经济、社会还是性方面都和男性具有同等的地位。 Then the environment changed some 10,000years ago, we began to settle down on the farm and both men and women becameobliged, really, to marry the right person, from the right background, from theright religion and from the right kin and social and political connections.Men's jobs became more important: they had to move the rocks, fell the trees,plow the land. They brought the produce to local markets, and came home withthe equivalent of money. 然而大约1万年前社会发生了变化，人类开始以农耕为主，男女似乎有义务寻找合适的人结婚。对方必须有匹配的背景、宗教信仰、相称的家族、社会及政治关联。男性的工作变得更为重要，他们必须搬运大石、砍树、耕地，他们把农产品带到市场上卖换回来同等的钱。 Along with this, we see a rise of a host ofbeliefs: the belief of virginity at marriage, arranged marriages -- strictlyarranged marriages -- the belief that the man is the head of the household,that the wife's place is in the home and most important, honor thy husband, and'til death do us part. These are gone. They are going, and in many places, theyare gone. 不仅如此，各种信仰开始传播。坚信婚前必须保持处女身包办婚姻（严格安排的婚姻）、坚信男性是一家之主女性就应该待在家里更重要的一点。女性一生一世必须尊夫所有这些都是过去式了，有些地方仍有这些现象，但大部分地区这些现象都不复存在了。 We are right now in a marriage revolution.We are shedding 10,000 years of our farming tradition and moving forwardtowards egalitarian relationships between the sexes -- something I regard ashighly compatible with the ancient human spirit. 我们正处于一场婚姻变革之中，我们摒弃了1万年前的农业传统，朝着两性平等的方向发展。我认为这和远古人类的精神相契合。 I'm not a Pollyanna; there's a great dealto cry about. I've studied divorce in 80 cultures, I've studied, as I say,adultery in many -- there's a whole pile of problems. As William Butler Yeats,the poet, once said, 'Love is the crooked thing.' I would add,'Nobody gets out alive.' 我不是一个盲目乐观的人，还有很多事情值得担忧。我研究了80种文化里的离婚行为、出轨行为还有许许多多的问题。正如诗人威廉·巴特勒·叶芝所说 “爱情是个狡猾的家伙” 我会再加一句，“没人能活着出来”。 We all have problems. But in fact, I thinkthe poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best. He said, 'The dark,uneasy world of family life -- where the greatest can fail, and the humblestsucceed.' 每个人都有困扰，但我认为诗人兰德尔·贾雷尔总结的最好他说：在枯燥繁琐的家庭生活中强者不显其智，弱者反而取胜。 But I will leave you with this: love andattachment will prevail, technology cannot change it. And I will conclude bysaying any understanding of human relationships must take into account one themost powerful determinants of human behavior: the unquenchable, adaptable andprimordial human drive to love. 但我想说的是：爱和相互依赖会战胜一切，科技无法改变这一点。总结下来，便是任何对人类关系的诠释必须考虑到人类行为，最强大的决定因素是那难以抑制的极具适应性的最原始的爱的动力。 Kelly Stoetzel: Thank you so much for that,Helen. As you know, there's another speaker here with us that works in yoursame field. She comes at it from a different perspective. Esther Perel is apsychotherapist who works with couples. You study data, Esther studies thestories the couples tell her when they come to her for help. Let's have herjoin us on the stage. Esther? Kelly Stoetzel：感谢您的演讲。海伦，今天还有另一位演讲者，她和您在相同的领域里做研究，不过是从不同的视角来分析问题。诶斯特·佩雷斯从事情侣心理治疗师的工作，您研究数据，诶斯特研究那些向她寻求帮助的情侣们所诉说的故事。现在请她上台吧，有请诶斯特。 So Esther, when you were watching Helen'stalk, was there any part of it that resonated with you through the lens of yourown work that you'd like to comment on? 诶斯特当您观看海伦演讲的时候是否有和您所做的工作产生共鸣的地方？您可以和我们说说嘛？ Esther Perel: It's interesting, because onthe one hand, the need for love is ubiquitous and universal. But the way welove -- the meaning we make out of it -- the rules that govern our relationships,I think, are changing fundamentally. Esther Perel：让我觉得有意思的地方是，一方面，人们对爱的需求无所不在，无所不及但人类爱的方式爱与被爱背后的意义，以及控制双方关系的规则正在发生根本性的改变。 We come from a model that, until now, wasprimarily regulated around duty and obligation, the needs of the collective andloyalty. And we have shifted it to a model of free choice and individualrights, and self-fulfillment and happiness. And so, that was the first thing Ithought, that the need doesn't change, but the context and the way we regulatethese relationships changes a lot. 直到最近我们一直处于一种模式，即主要由责任和义务集体和忠诚主义支配的模式。而现在，我们转向了另一种模式即追崇自主选择、个人权利、自我实现与幸福的模式，这是我脑子里冒出的第一个想法，爱的需求没有改变，但大环境和人们处理情感关系的方式发生了很大的变化。 On the paradox of choice -- you know, onthe one hand we relish the novelty and the playfulness, I think, to be able tohave so many options. And at the same time, as you talk about this cognitiveoverload, I see many, many people who ... who dread the uncertainty andself-doubt that comes with this massa of choice, creating a case of'FOMO' and then leading us -- FOMO, fear of missed opportunity, orfear of missing out -- it's like, 'How do I know I have found 'the one' --the right one?' 关于选择悖论我认为一方面我们追求多重选择给我们带来的新鲜感和趣味性，同时，就像你提到的“认知负荷” 我看到许多人对堆砌成堆的选项所带来的不确定性和不自信而感到担忧，从而制造出某种“害怕错过的恐惧症” 于是便引领我们-- “FOMO”，表现为害怕机会流失，就好比“我怎么知道这个人就是我命中注定的那一个呢？” So we've created what I call this thing of'stable ambiguity.' Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to bealone but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building. It's a set oftactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship but also theuncertainty of the breakup. 与人建立亲密关系。这是一种策略，不仅会使这段关系的不确定性期延长，还能拖延分手的不确定性。 So, here on the internet you have three major ones.One is icing and simmering, which are great stalling tactics that offer a kindof holding pattern that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship butat the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency and enough freedomof the undefined boundaries. 网络上将其分为三个阶段：一是冰冻期和温吞水，这是很好的拖延战术，它使人们处于某种停滞状态。在这种状态下，强调情感关系中的不界定属性但同时能让你维持这段关系以及自由做出选择的空间。 Yeah? 对吗？ And then comes ghosting. And ghosting is,basically, you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot, and you don'thave to deal with the pain that you inflict on another, because you're makingit invisible even to yourself. 接下来就到了“幽灵阶段”。“幽灵阶段”基本上是指你突然不再做出选择、不再应对你给对方带来的痛苦，因为你自己都掩耳盗铃。 Yeah? 说的对吗？ So I was thinking -- these words came upfor me as I was listening to you, like how a vocabulary also creates a reality,and at the same time, that's my question to you: Do you think when the contextchanges, it still means that the nature of love remains the same? 这种现象我称为“稳定的模棱两可”。指的是你害怕被剩下来孤独终老，但又不愿打开心扉。当我在听你演讲的时候我想到了这些，正如语言重现现实一样。与此同时，我也有个问题要问你：当环境发生变化时，你认为爱的本质还是一样的吗？ You study the brain and I study people'srelationships and stories, so I think it's everything you say, plus. But Idon't always know the degree to which a changing context ... Does it at somepoint begin to change -- If the meaning changes, does it change the need, or isthe need clear of the entire context? 你研究大脑，而我研究情侣关系。我认可你的观点，但我不明白的是环境改变的程度——它是从某一点开始改变的呢？如果意义变了，需求是否也会改变呢？或需求本身不受整个大环境影响？ HF: Wow! Well -- 海伦：哇！ Well, I've got three points here, right?First of all, to your first one: there's no question that we've changed, thatwe now want a person to love, and for thousands of years, we had to marry theright person from the right background and right kin connection. And in fact,in my studies of 5,000 people every year, I ask them, 'What are youlooking for?' And every single year, over 97 percent say -- 海伦：好的，我分为三点来说首先，回答你第一个问题：人类变了，这一点毋庸置疑现在人们依然渴望爱情。而几千年来人们都遵从必须和来自匹配的背景和关联的人结婚，每年我对5000人进行调研，我问他们：“你想找什么样的人？” 每年超过97%的人会说。 海伦：是的。 EP: The list grows -- 诶斯特：清单越来越长了吧？ HF: Well, no. The basic thing is over 97percent of people want somebody that respects them, somebody they can trust andconfide in, somebody who makes them laugh, somebody who makes enough time forthem and somebody who they find physically attractive. That never changes. Andthere's certainly -- you know, there's two parts -- 海伦：呃，没有。超过97%的人都表示想找尊重自己、值得信任的、能交心的 、能逗你笑的、花时间陪自己的以及长相看着顺眼的人。这几点从未改变过，大概有两部分-- EP: But you know how I call that? That'snot what people used to say -- 诶斯特：你知道我怎么定义这种现象吗？过去人们并不是这样的择偶标准。 HF: That's exactly right. EP: They said they wanted somebody withwhom they have companionship, economic support, children. We went from aproduction economy to a service economy.We did it in the larger culture, and we'redoing it in marriage. 诶斯特：过去人们会说他们想找能够与自己作伴、提供经济支持、喜爱孩子的人，我们从生产经济转变为服务经济。在其他文化中我们已经这么做了，现在我们把它带到婚姻中。 HF: Right, no question about it. But it'sinteresting, the millennials actually want to be very good parents, whereas thegeneration above them wants to have a very fine marriage but is not as focusedon being a good parent. You see all of these nuances. 海伦：是的，这一点毫无疑问但有趣的是，如今千禧一代非常渴望成为合格的家长，而他们的上一代人希望有个美满的婚姻，但却不向他们一样专注于成为合格的家长，你可以看到这些细微的差别。 There's two basic parts of personality:there's your culture -- everything you grew up to do and believe and say -- andthere's your temperament. Basically, what I've been talking about is yourtemperament. And that temperament is certainly going to change with changingtimes and changing beliefs. 人格有两个基本构成部分：你的文化、成长过程信仰和言行以及性格，我讨论的基本上都是性格。而性格一定会随着时间和信仰的改变而改变。 And in terms of the paradox of choice,there's no question about it that this is a pickle. There were millions ofyears where you found that sweet boy at the other side of the water hole, andyou went for it. 就选择悖论而言这确实是个两难的境地。千百万年以来，如果人们在河边看到心动的对象，便会去争取。 EP: Yes, but you -- 诶斯特：是的，但是-- HF: I do want to say one more thing. Thebottom line is, in hunting and gathering societies, they tended to have two orthree partners during the course of their lives. They weren't square! And I'mnot suggesting that we do, but the bottom line is, we've always hadalternatives. Mankind is always -- in fact, the brain is well-built to what wecall 'equilibrate,' to try and decide: Do I come, do I stay? Do I go,do I stay? What are the opportunities here? How do I handle this there? And soI think we're seeing another play-out of that now. 海伦：还有一件事归根结底，在狩猎及采集社会中，人们一生中通常有2到3个伴侣他们并不是两两相对的。我当然不是建议我们也这么做，但重要的是我们始终可以做出其他选择。人类一直如此，实际上，人类大脑的构造是平衡对称的，去试探或下决心：来或走？去或留？留下来有什么样的机遇？怎么处理这件事？我想现在上演的正是大脑决策的另一出戏。 KS: Well, thank you both so much. I thinkyou're going to have a million dinner partners for tonight! KS：非常感谢两位。我想你今晚要和很多人共进晚餐了。 (Applause)Thank you, thank you. （掌声）谢谢！ |
|
|
