发文章
发文工具
撰写
网文摘手
文档
视频
思维导图
随笔
相册
原创同步助手
其他工具
图片转文字
文件清理
AI助手
留言交流
I want to talk to you today a little bit about predictable irrationality. And my interest in irrational behavior started many years ago in the hospital. I was burned very badly. And if you spend a lot of time in hospital, you'll see a lot of types of irrationalities. And the one that particularly bothered me in the burn department was the process by which the nurses took the bandage off me. Now, you must have all taken a Band-Aid off at some point, and you must have wondered what's the right approach. Do you rip it off quickly -- short duration but high intensity -- or do you take your Band-Aid off slowly -- you take a long time, but each second is not as painful -- which one of those is the right approach?
The nurses in my department thought that the right approach was the ripping one, so they would grab hold and they would rip, and they would grab hold and they would rip. And because I had 70 percent of my body burned, it would take about an hour. And as you can imagine, I hated that moment of ripping with incredible intensity. And I would try to reason with them and say, "Why don't we try something else? Why don't we take it a little longer -- maybe two hours instead of an hour -- and have less of this intensity?" And the nurses told me two things. They told me that they had the right model of the patient -- that they knew what was the right thing to do to minimize my pain -- and they also told me that the word patient doesn't mean to make suggestions or to interfere or ... This is not just in Hebrew, by the way. It's in every language I've had experience with so far.
And, you know, there's not much -- there wasn't much I could do, and they kept on doing what they were doing. And about three years later, when I left the hospital, I started studying at the university. And one of the most interesting lessons I learned was that there is an experimental method that if you have a question you can create a replica of this question in some abstract way, and you can try to examine this question, maybe learn something about the world.
So that's what I did. I was still interested in this question of how do you take bandages off burn patients. So originally I didn't have much money, so I went to a hardware store and I bought a carpenter's vice. And I would bring people to the lab and I would put their finger in it, and I would crunch it a little bit.
(Laughter)
And I would crunch it for long periods and short periods, and pain that went up and pain that went down, and with breaks and without breaks -- all kinds of versions of pain. And when I finished hurting people a little bit, I would ask them, so, how painful was this? Or, how painful was this? Or, if you had to choose between the last two, which one would you choose?
I kept on doing this for a while.
And then, like all good academic projects, I got more funding. I moved to sounds, electrical shocks -- I even had a pain suit that I could get people to feel much more pain.
But at the end of this process, what I learned was that the nurses were wrong. Here were wonderful people with good intentions and plenty of experience, and nevertheless they were getting things wrong predictably all the time. It turns out that because we don't encode duration in the way that we encode intensity, I would have had less pain if the duration would have been longer and the intensity was lower. It turns out it would have been better to start with my face, which was much more painful, and move toward my legs, giving me a trend of improvement over time -- that would have been also less painful. And it also turns out that it would have been good to give me breaks in the middle to kind of recuperate from the pain. All of these would have been great things to do, and my nurses had no idea.
And from that point on I started thinking, are the nurses the only people in the world who get things wrong in this particular decision, or is it a more general case? And it turns out it's a more general case -- there's a lot of mistakes we do. And I want to give you one example of one of these irrationalities, and I want to talk to you about cheating. And the reason I picked cheating is because it's interesting, but also it tells us something, I think, about the stock market situation we're in. So, my interest in cheating started when Enron came on the scene, exploded all of a sudden, and I started thinking about what is happening here. Is it the case that there was kind of a few apples who are capable of doing these things, or are we talking a more endemic situation, that many people are actually capable of behaving this way?
So, like we usually do, I decided to do a simple experiment. And here's how it went. If you were in the experiment, I would pass you a sheet of paper with 20 simple math problems that everybody could solve, but I wouldn't give you enough time. When the five minutes were over, I would say, "Pass me the sheets of paper, and I'll pay you a dollar per question." People did this. I would pay people four dollars for their task -- on average people would solve four problems. Other people I would tempt to cheat. I would pass their sheet of paper. When the five minutes were over, I would say, "Please shred the piece of paper. Put the little pieces in your pocket or in your backpack, and tell me how many questions you got correctly." People now solved seven questions on average. Now, it wasn't as if there was a few bad apples -- a few people cheated a lot. Instead, what we saw is a lot of people who cheat a little bit.
Now, in economic theory, cheating is a very simple cost-benefit analysis. You say, what's the probability of being caught? How much do I stand to gain from cheating? And how much punishment would I get if I get caught? And you weigh these options out -- you do the simple cost-benefit analysis, and you decide whether it's worthwhile to commit the crime or not. So, we try to test this. For some people, we varied how much money they could get away with -- how much money they could steal. We paid them 10 cents per correct question, 50 cents, a dollar, five dollars, 10 dollars per correct question.
You would expect that as the amount of money on the table increases, people would cheat more, but in fact it wasn't the case. We got a lot of people cheating by stealing by a little bit. What about the probability of being caught? Some people shredded half the sheet of paper, so there was some evidence left. Some people shredded the whole sheet of paper. Some people shredded everything, went out of the room, and paid themselves from the bowl of money that had over 100 dollars. You would expect that as the probability of being caught goes down, people would cheat more, but again, this was not the case. Again, a lot of people cheated by just by a little bit, and they were insensitive to these economic incentives.
So we said, "If people are not sensitive to the economic rational theory explanations, to these forces, what could be going on?" And we thought maybe what is happening is that there are two forces. At one hand, we all want to look at ourselves in the mirror and feel good about ourselves, so we don't want to cheat. On the other hand, we can cheat a little bit, and still feel good about ourselves. So, maybe what is happening is that there's a level of cheating we can't go over, but we can still benefit from cheating at a low degree, as long as it doesn't change our impressions about ourselves. We call this like a personal fudge factor.
Now, how would you test a personal fudge factor? Initially we said, what can we do to shrink the fudge factor? So, we got people to the lab, and we said, "We have two tasks for you today." First, we asked half the people to recall either 10 books they read in high school, or to recall The Ten Commandments, and then we tempted them with cheating. Turns out the people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments -- and in our sample nobody could recall all of The Ten Commandments -- but those people who tried to recall The Ten Commandments, given the opportunity to cheat, did not cheat at all. It wasn't that the more religious people -- the people who remembered more of the Commandments -- cheated less, and the less religious people -- the people who couldn't remember almost any Commandments -- cheated more. The moment people thought about trying to recall The Ten Commandments, they stopped cheating. In fact, even when we gave self-declared atheists the task of swearing on the Bible and we give them a chance to cheat, they don't cheat at all. Now, Ten Commandments is something that is hard to bring into the education system, so we said, "Why don't we get people to sign the honor code?" So, we got people to sign, "I understand that this short survey falls under the MIT Honor Code." Then they shredded it. No cheating whatsoever. And this is particularly interesting, because MIT doesn't have an honor code. (Laughter)
So, all this was about decreasing the fudge factor. What about increasing the fudge factor? The first experiment -- I walked around MIT and I distributed six-packs of Cokes in the refrigerators -- these were common refrigerators for the undergrads. And I came back to measure what we technically call the half-lifetime of Coke -- how long does it last in the refrigerators? As you can expect it doesn't last very long; people take it. In contrast, I took a plate with six one-dollar bills, and I left those plates in the same refrigerators. No bill ever disappeared.
Now, this is not a good social science experiment, so to do it better I did the same experiment as I described to you before. A third of the people we passed the sheet, they gave it back to us. A third of the people we passed it to, they shredded it, they came to us and said, "Mr. Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X dollars." A third of the people, when they finished shredding the piece of paper, they came to us and said, "Mr Experimenter, I solved X problems. Give me X tokens." We did not pay them with dollars; we paid them with something else. And then they took the something else, they walked 12 feet to the side, and exchanged it for dollars.
Think about the following intuition. How bad would you feel about taking a pencil from work home, compared to how bad would you feel about taking 10 cents from a petty cash box? These things feel very differently. Would being a step removed from cash for a few seconds by being paid by token make a difference? Our subjects doubled their cheating. I'll tell you what I think about this and the stock market in a minute. But this did not solve the big problem I had with Enron yet, because in Enron, there's also a social element. People see each other behaving. In fact, every day when we open the news we see examples of people cheating. What does this cause us?
So, we did another experiment. We got a big group of students to be in the experiment, and we prepaid them. So everybody got an envelope with all the money for the experiment, and we told them that at the end, we asked them to pay us back the money they didn't make. OK? The same thing happens. When we give people the opportunity to cheat, they cheat. They cheat just by a little bit, all the same. But in this experiment we also hired an acting student. This acting student stood up after 30 seconds, and said, "I solved everything. What do I do now?" And the experimenter said, "If you've finished everything, go home. That's it. The task is finished." So, now we had a student -- an acting student -- that was a part of the group. Nobody knew it was an actor. And they clearly cheated in a very, very serious way. What would happen to the other people in the group? Will they cheat more, or will they cheat less?
Here is what happens. It turns out it depends on what kind of sweatshirt they're wearing. Here is the thing. We ran this at Carnegie Mellon and Pittsburgh. And at Pittsburgh there are two big universities, Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh. All of the subjects sitting in the experiment were Carnegie Mellon students. When the actor who was getting up was a Carnegie Mellon student -- he was actually a Carnegie Mellon student -- but he was a part of their group, cheating went up. But when he actually had a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt, cheating went down.
Now, this is important, because remember, when the moment the student stood up, it made it clear to everybody that they could get away with cheating, because the experimenter said, "You've finished everything. Go home," and they went with the money. So it wasn't so much about the probability of being caught again. It was about the norms for cheating. If somebody from our in-group cheats and we see them cheating, we feel it's more appropriate, as a group, to behave this way. But if it's somebody from another group, these terrible people -- I mean, not terrible in this -- but somebody we don't want to associate ourselves with, from another university, another group, all of a sudden people's awareness of honesty goes up -- a little bit like The Ten Commandments experiment -- and people cheat even less.
So, what have we learned from this about cheating? We've learned that a lot of people can cheat. They cheat just by a little bit. When we remind people about their morality, they cheat less. When we get bigger distance from cheating, from the object of money, for example, people cheat more. And when we see cheating around us, particularly if it's a part of our in-group, cheating goes up. Now, if we think about this in terms of the stock market, think about what happens. What happens in a situation when you create something where you pay people a lot of money to see reality in a slightly distorted way? Would they not be able to see it this way? Of course they would. What happens when you do other things, like you remove things from money? You call them stock, or stock options, derivatives, mortgage-backed securities. Could it be that with those more distant things, it's not a token for one second, it's something that is many steps removed from money for a much longer time -- could it be that people will cheat even more? And what happens to the social environment when people see other people behave around them? I think all of those forces worked in a very bad way in the stock market.
More generally, I want to tell you something about behavioral economics. We have many intuitions in our life, and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? We can think about how we're going to test this intuition in our private life, in our business life, and most particularly when it goes to policy, when we think about things like No Child Left Behind, when you create new stock markets, when you create other policies -- taxation, health care and so on. And the difficulty of testing our intuition was the big lesson I learned when I went back to the nurses to talk to them.
So I went back to talk to them and tell them what I found out about removing bandages. And I learned two interesting things. One was that my favorite nurse, Ettie, told me that I did not take her pain into consideration. She said, "Of course, you know, it was very painful for you. But think about me as a nurse, taking, removing the bandages of somebody I liked, and had to do it repeatedly over a long period of time. Creating so much torture was not something that was good for me, too." And she said maybe part of the reason was it was difficult for her. But it was actually more interesting than that, because she said, "I did not think that your intuition was right. I felt my intuition was correct." So, if you think about all of your intuitions, it's very hard to believe that your intuition is wrong. And she said, "Given the fact that I thought my intuition was right ..." -- she thought her intuition was right -- it was very difficult for her to accept doing a difficult experiment to try and check whether she was wrong.
But in fact, this is the situation we're all in all the time. We have very strong intuitions about all kinds of things -- our own ability, how the economy works, how we should pay school teachers. But unless we start testing those intuitions, we're not going to do better. And just think about how better my life would have been if these nurses would have been willing to check their intuition, and how everything would have been better if we just start doing more systematic experimentation of our intuitions.
Thank you very much.
今日我想要稍微谈论 那些预知的非理性 我对非理性的行为态度产生兴趣 从很多年以前开始,在一个医院里 当时我严重烧伤 如果你在医院里待了很长时间 你将会看见许多不同类型的荒谬 在医院的烧烫伤部门让我最难以接受的荒谬 发生在护士为我拆除绷带的时候 每个人应该都有使用创可贴的经验 你也应该想过怎样撕掉才是最好的 你是瞬间撕开 - 时间短但很痛 还是慢慢地把它撕掉 虽然时间长,但感觉不这么痛 哪一种才是比较好的方式?
当时在我部门的护士认为一次快速的撕开才是正确的 她们紧抓,然后撕开 然后再紧抓,再撕开 当时我身体有百分之七十的烧伤,整个过程要一个小时 你可以想象 我非常痛恨撕开绷带 极端痛苦的那刻 我努力地想和她们讲理 “我们不能试试其他方法吗? 我们不能花长一点的时间 或许两个小时 - 让痛苦不要这么强烈? 护士告诉我两件事 她们告诉我她们知道什么对患者是最好的 她们知道如何减低我的痛苦 并且患者这个词的意思 不包括”提出建议”或“尝试干涉” 不只在希伯来文是如此 几乎我目前遇见的所有语言都是如此
于是我无能为力 她们继续她们的方法 三年后,当我离开医院时 我开始在大学做研究 我在学校里学的最有趣的事情是 “实验法”的存在 你可以靠复制经验 来尝试找出解答 抽象地说,你可以试着检验你的问题 以尝试了解这个世界上的事情
于是我就这么做了 我仍然对 如何撕开患者身上的绷带这个问题很有兴趣 刚开始我没有什么资金 我去五金行买了一个木匠用的老虎钳 我把那些来到实验室的人的手指放到里面 然后“嘎吱”一下
(笑声)
我会用较长的时间或较短的时间挤压 那些较为严重的痛 和较轻微的痛 有休息的 和没有休息的 - 许多不同种类的痛 当我结束伤害他们的时候,我会问 这样有多痛?那样又有多痛? 如果你可以从中选择一种的话 你会选择哪一种?
我这么做了一阵子
就像所有优秀的学术研究一样,我有更多资金 我开始加入声波,电击 我甚至制作了一件“疼痛服”让人们能感受到更多痛楚
但在研究结束后 我发觉护士们是错的 虽然她们都是善良的人 经验丰富,但就算如此 她们的观念仍然是错误的 因为在我们测量痛楚时 我们并没有考虑到延续性 如果把时间拉长 我的痛楚就会减低 最好的方法是从最痛的脸部开始 再逐渐地往腿部下移 让我有一种逐渐减缓的感觉 这样也能减低我的痛苦 如果我可以在过程中稍作休息 让我有一些时间从痛楚中恢复 这所有的方法都能改善我当时的情况 但这些护士却毫无所悉
从那时我开始想 这些护士是全世界唯一有这种错误认知的人 在这件特别的事情上,还是这其实是一种普遍现象? 于是我发现 其实这是一个普遍现象 我们时常犯下这样的错误 在这里我想以作弊作为例子 来讨论这些非理性 我选择作弊的原因是因为它很有趣 也因为它也为我们现在股市的现状 提供了一些线索 我对作弊的兴趣从 美国安然公司突然爆发丑闻开始 我开始思考究竟发生了什么事情 难道这是来自一些 害群之马才能犯下的例子 还是一种地方性的现象 许多人都抱持着这样的态度?
于是,我们决定故技重施,进行一些简单的试验 我们是这样做的 如果你参加了这个实验,我会给你一张纸 上面有二十个人人能解决的简单数学问题 但我不会给你足够的时间 当五分钟到了以后,我会说 “把纸交给我,答对一题我就给你一块钱。” 人们这么做了。我付他们四块 平均来说,人可以解决四个问题 我尝试引诱其中一些人作弊 我会给他们一张纸 五分钟到了以后,我会说 “请将那张纸撕碎 把碎片放在口袋或是背包里, 然后告诉我你答对了几题。” 平均突然从四题变成了七题 不是有几个害群之马 -- 换句话说,一小群人作很大的弊 而是一大群人作一些小弊
在经济学理论上 作弊是一种非常简单的成本效益分析 被抓到的可能性有多高? 我作弊的好处有多少? 被抓到会有怎样的惩罚? 你衡量这些选项 一个简单的成本效益分析 然后决定是否值得犯下罪行 我们对此进行一些测验 我们开始给他们不同数目的金钱 他们所能偷窃的数目 我们给他们十分钱,五十分 一块钱,五块钱,到十块钱一个问题
你预估当桌上的钱增多时 人们也更愿意作弊。但事实上却不是 仍有许多人为了很少的金钱作弊 那难道是被抓到的可能性吗? 有些人只撕了半张纸 还有些证据留下 有些人撕碎了整张纸 有些人彻底撕碎了全部,走出房间 然后从放有超过百元美金的碗里拿走钱 你会预估当被抓的可能性降低 人们作弊的几率便会提升,但却不是如此 又一次地,许多人作了一些小弊 人们并没被这些经济学所说的诱因影响
我们想“如果这些符合经济学逻辑的解答 这些原因,对人们不造成影响 那么究竟发生了什么事?” 于是我们想,或许有两种力量 一方面,我们都有自省的能力 都希望对自己感觉良好,所以我们不想作弊 另一方面,我们作一点小弊 在还能对自己感觉良好的范围里 所以或许 我们心中有一种不能跨越的尺度 但我们仍然能从一些小奸小恶中获利 只要不要让我们自己感到不齿 我们说这叫“自我蒙混因素”
但我们该如何测试自我蒙混因素呢? 刚开始我们说,我们该怎么做来降低蒙混因素呢? 当人们进入实验室时,我们说 “今日我们要给你两个任务。” 第一,我们问其中一半的人 回想十本他们在高中所看过的书 或是回忆圣经中的十诫 然后我们尝试让他们作弊。 我们发觉那些尝试回想十诫的人 虽然在我们的标本中没有任何人能完整背诵出十诫 但那些尝试回想圣经十诫的人 面对作弊的可能性,却没有作弊 那并不代表对宗教信仰比较虔诚的人 那些能背诵出较多十诫的人,比较少作弊 或那些对宗教信仰比较不虔诚的人 那些无法回忆出任何一诫的人 比较会作弊 在人们尝试回想十诫的那一刻 他们便不作弊了 事实上,就算我们让那些自称是无神论的人 把手放在圣经上发誓,然后再给他们作弊的机会 他们也仍然没有作弊 要把圣经十诫带进教育系统里 是一件困难的事,所以我们说 “不然我们让人们在荣誉行为准则上签名吧?” 于是,我们让他们签名, “我认知这份简短调查遵行麻省理工学院的荣誉准则” 然后把它撕碎。没有任何人作弊 这真是非常有趣 因为麻省理工学院根本没有任何荣誉准则 (笑声)
这是有关降低蒙混因素的 又如何提高蒙混因素呢? 第一个实验中 我在麻省理工学院游走 我把半打可乐放进不同的冰箱中 都是些给大学生的普通冰箱 然后再回去测量我们所说的 可乐的人生周期 - 它们能在冰箱里留多久? 你可以想象那并没有多久。人们拿走它们。 相对的,我把一个装着六章一块钱美金钞票的盘子 放进那些同样的冰箱 没有任何一张美金被拿走
这大概不是一个好的社会科学实验 为了改善我再做了一次一样的实验 就像我和诸位形容的一样 三分之一的人把试验纸交会给我们 三分之一的人把纸撕碎 他们跟我们说 “先生,我解决了几个问题,给我几块钱。” 三分之一的人,在他们把纸撕碎以后 他们跟我们说 “先生,我解决了几个问题,给我几个代币。” 我们没有付他们现金,而是一些其他的代替品 他们拿着这些代替品,走到十二英尺远的旁边 再把代替品换成现金
试着想想以下的假设状况 从公司拿一支铅笔 或是从公司钱柜里拿走十分钱 哪一种感觉比较差? 这些事给人的感觉差异很大 把现金移动到稍为远一点的地方,改拿代币 能不能造成什么差异? 我们实验对象的作弊情况提高了两倍 稍后我会告诉你 这些例子和股市有什么关联 但这仍然无法解决我对安然公司的疑问 因为在安然,还有一个社会性的元素 人们眼见其他人的作为 事实上,每天我们看新闻 都能看到人们作弊欺骗的例子 这怎么影响我们?
所以,我们又做了另一个实验 我们召来一大群学生来参加实验 我们先付他们钱 所以每个人都先拿到装着实验回馈的信封 在结束时,我们请他们 把没有赚到的钱还给我们 同样的事情发生了 当我们给人们作弊的机会,他们作弊了 他们只作了一点小弊,但都一样 但这次我们请来一位学生演员 这个学生演员在三十秒后站起来,说 “我解开所有题目了,现在呢?” 实验者则回答”如果你做完所有题目了,就回去吧。“ 就这样。任务结束了。 所以现在我们有了一个学生 - 一个演员 在这组人中 没有人知道他是个演员 只知道他明目张胆的作弊 这会对在场的其他人有什么影响? 他们会作更多的弊,或是相反?
事情是这样发生的。 结果是,那取决于他们身上穿的衣服 因为 我们在卡内基梅隆和匹兹堡大学进行这次实验 在匹兹堡有两家主要的大学 卡内基梅隆和匹兹堡大学 而我们的实验对象 都是卡内基梅隆大学的学生 当站起来的演员穿着卡内基梅隆的衣服 他其实也是个卡内基梅隆的学生 也就是说他是团队中的一员,作弊的情况增加了 但当他穿着一件匹兹堡大学的外衣时 作弊的情况便减少了
这是很重要的一点,因为记住 在这个学生站起来的那一刻 他对在场所有人证明作弊是可行的 因为实验者说 ”你做完所有题目了,回去吧。“他们就带着钱回去了 所以这和被抓到的几率无关 而是一种作弊的典范 如果在我们的团队中有人作弊,我们也看到他们作弊 我们便觉得那是适当的,身为一个团队,有这一样的态度 但如果是个外人,那些糟糕的人 不是说他们做题做的不好 而是那些我们不想被当成一丘之貉的人 那些其他学校的,其他团体的 突然人们的诚实和警觉性都提高了 有点类似之前的圣经十诫实验 作弊的情况更加降低了。
所以,我们究竟从这些实验中学到了什么? 我们知道许多人都会作弊 他们作一点点小弊 当我们唤起人们的道德感,作弊的情况减少 当我们提高和作弊之中的距离 像是现金,作弊的情况便提高 当我们看到身边的人作弊 尤其是我们的同侪,作弊的情况便提高 当我们想到股市的时候 想到现在发生的事情 当你创造了这个环境 你付他们很多的钱 扭曲了他们对现实的看法? 他们能不这么看吗? 当然他们会这样做。 当你又做了一些其他的事情 像是用一些东西代替现金? 你叫他们股票,或是选择权,衍生商品 按揭证券 有没有可能因为这些东西听来遥远 它不只是一个几秒外的代币 而是离现金有一段距离的象征物 冠以更长的时间 - 人们是否会更容易作弊? 在今日的社会环境中,人们看到他人的行为时 又会有什么影响和反应? 这全都是一些很不好的因素和影响 在今日的股市中
我想泛泛地谈一些 有关行为经济学的事 在人生中我们有许多直觉 却有许多是错误的 问题是,我们该去检视这些直觉吗? 我们可以思考我们该如何去检视这些直觉 从我们的私生活,我们的公事 特别是制定政策的时候 当我们想到一些像“一个都不能少”这种教育政策 当你开发一些新的股票市场,当你制定一些新的政策 税法,健康保险等 检测直觉是非常困难的 这是在我回去和这些护士谈话时 学到的一个教训。
我回到当初的医院 告诉他们对于撕开绷带方法的新发现 我学到两件有趣的事 一是我最喜欢的护士,Ettie 告诉我我并没有考虑到她的痛苦 她说“当然,那对你来说很痛苦 但想想身为护士的我 要从一个我喜欢的人身上撕开这些绷带 并且要长期不断地重复这个动作 我也不想为自己带来这么大的折磨,那也并不好受。” 她说,或许对她来说如此困难是因为 这实在非常有趣,因为她说 “我不觉得你的直觉是对的 我觉得我的直觉才是对的。” 所以,当想到我们的那些直觉时 要相信自己的直觉是错误的是非常困难的。 她说,正因为我认为我的直觉是对的 她也认为她的直觉是正确的 她很难接受这样去做一个艰难的实验 来证明她是对或错。
但事实上,这正是我们每日面对的状况 对许多事我们都有很强的直觉 我们自己的能力,经济运作的方式 我们应该付给学校老师多少薪水 但在我们真正开始去检测这些直觉前 我们都不会有什么进步 只要想想如果那些护士能检测自己的直觉 我的人生会有多大的改善 每件事又会有多大的改善 如果我们能开始有系统性地测验我们的直觉
非常谢谢各位。
来自: kevingiao > 《Ted》
0条评论
发表
请遵守用户 评论公约
人人都该知道的十大人生哲学
生命很短生活很长:人人都该知道的十大人生哲学。The present – the here and now – is all the life you ever get. So live each mom...
瑞·达利欧:成功的原则 |中英双语完整版
Going from seeing things through just my eyes, to seeing things through the eyes of these thoughtful people was like going from seeing things in black and white to seeing them in color. (...
有哪些浪漫的英语短句?
How lovely the green mountains and rivers, everyone loves a beautiful woman, to the next generation, we must fall in love.Every...
有哲理的人生感悟语句,发人深省,百读不厌!
Most afraid that you can walk easily, but I am carrying all the pain you have given me to stop in situ, how can not take a step...
TED演讲 | 扑克冠军:做决定的三个策略
TED演讲 | ?扑克冠军:做决定的三个策略。在这个简短的演讲中,职业扑克玩家Liv Boeree分享了她从游戏中学到的三种策略以及我们如何将它们应用到现实生活中。扑克冠军:做决定的三个策略 来自TED英语演...
一个人如何才能意识到潜意识?
一个人如何才能意识到潜意识?During so-called sleep, when the conscious brain is somewhat quiet, the unconscious intimates certa...
双语:10篇有趣短文记单词(一)
4、A Horrible Earthquake。But no one judged that an earthquake was coming。The evidences they found showed that a maid took the...
早安心语英文版
47、Everyone wants happiness, no one wants pain, but you can''''''''t make a rainbow without a ...
高一英语阅读理解专项练习:议论文类
Some kids cheat because they’re busy or lazy and they want to get good grades without spending the time studying. Other kids might feel like they can’t pass the test without cheating. E...
微信扫码,在手机上查看选中内容