What you have here is an electronic cigarette.
现在你看到的是一只电子香烟。
It's something that, since it was invented a year or two ago, has given me untold happiness.
自从它于一、两年前被发明出来，这支烟带给了我无可言喻的快乐。
A little bit of it, I think, is the nicotine, but there's something much bigger than that;
我想其中一点是由于尼古丁的缘故，但不只限于此。
which is, ever since, in the UK, they banned smoking in public places, I've never enjoyed a drinks party ever again.
自从英国开始禁止人们在公共场所吸烟后，我再也没有享受过聚会了。
And the reason, I only worked out just the other day, which is:
直到最近我才想到我无法再享受聚会的原因，
when you go to a drinks party and you stand up and hold a glass of red wine and you talk endlessly to people,
因为你去到了聚会后，站在一角，拿着红酒，然后与别人闲聊，
you don't actually want to spend all the time talking. It's really, really tiring.
不过你并不能一直不停的聊天，那样是很很累人的。
Sometimes you just want to stand there silently, alone with your thoughts.
有时你只想静静的呆在一旁，独自思考。
Sometimes you just want to stand in the corner and stare out of the window.
有时你只想站在角落凝视窗外。
Now the problem is, when you can't smoke,
问题是，当你不能吸烟时，
if you stand and stare out of the window on your own, you're an antisocial, friendless idiot.
一个人呆在角落望着窗外意味着你是一个孤僻没有朋友的傻子。
If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.
但如果你只身伫立于角落凝望窗外，并且拿着一只香烟，那意味着你TMD是一个思想家。
So the power of reframing things cannot be overstated.
所以，再构造事情的能力是极其重要的。
What we have is exactly the same thing, the same activity,
同样的事件，同样的活动，
but one of them makes you feel great and the other one, with just a small change of posture, makes you feel terrible.
只改变其中一小点，一个活动，就可以让你感觉很棒，而另一个可以让你感觉很糟糕。
And I think one of the problems with classical economics is, it's absolutely preoccupied with reality.
我认为古典经济学中的一个问题就在于它太关注现实。
And reality isn't a particularly good guide to human happiness.
而现实并不是一个可以领导人们走向快乐的好指导。
Why, for example, are pensioners much happier than the young unemployed?
为什么？举例来说吧，退休的人和年轻的无业人士相比是不是更快乐点？
Both of them, after all, are in exactly the same stage of life.
两者都处于相同的地位，
You both have too much time on your hands and not much money.
两者都属于有时间没闲钱的人。
But pensioners are reportedly very, very happy, whereas the unemployed are extraordinarily unhappy and depressed.
但是据调查显示，退休的人要快乐的多，相反，失业人士却非常的情绪低落。
The reason, I think, is that the pensioners believe they've chosen to be pensioners,
原因就在于，退休的人相信他们自己选择了退休，
whereas the young unemployed feel it's been thrust upon them.
而失业的人却认为他们是没有选择的被迫失业。
In England, the upper-middle classes have actually solved this problem perfectly, because they've re-branded unemployment.
在英格兰，社会中上阶层的人已经完美的解决了这个问题，他们重新包装了失业。
If you're an upper-middle-class English person, you call unemployment "a year off."
如果你是一个中上阶级的英国人，你会用“年休”代替失业。
And that's because having a son who's unemployed in Manchester is really quite embarrassing.
那是因为如果你有一个儿子在曼彻斯特失业，还是蛮丢脸的。
But having a son who's unemployed in Thailand is really viewed as quite an accomplishment.
但如果你的儿子在泰国失业，却是一种另类的成就。
But actually, the power to re-brand things -- to understand that our experiences, costs,
但其实，重新包装事情的力量--理解到其实我们的经历，代价
things don't actually much depend on what they really are, but on how we view them -- I genuinely think can't be overstated.
以及其他并不在于它们的本身，而在于我们如何看它们--我真的认为它的威力不能小觑。
There's an experiment I think Daniel Pink refers to, where you put two dogs in a box and the box has an electric floor.
Daniel Pink提到一个实验：将两条狗放入有着电子地板的箱子里。
Every now and then, an electric shock is applied to the floor, which pains the dogs.
每过一会儿地板上会有电流通过，而狗会感觉疼痛。
The only difference is one of the dogs has a small button in its half of the box.
唯一的不同点在于，其中的一个条狗在它那二分之一个箱子中有一个小小的按钮。
And when it nuzzles the button, the electric shock stops.
每当它按下按钮，电流便会停止。
The other dog doesn't have the button.
另外一个狗没有这样一个按钮。
It's exposed to exactly the same level of pain as the dog in the first box, but it has no control over the circumstances.
它所受到的疼痛和另外一条狗是一样的，但它对于它的环境没有控制能力。
Generally, the first dog can be relatively content. The second dog lapses into complete depression.
一般来说，第一条狗感觉还算满足，但第二条狗则陷入完全的萎靡不振。
The circumstances of our lives may actually matter less to our happiness than the sense of control we feel over our lives.
人生境遇对我们幸福的影响力，比不上我们对人生的控制感。
It's an interesting question. We ask the question -- the whole debate in the Western world is about the level of taxation.
这个问题很有意思。我们问一个问题--西方国家大部分的争议都是关于税收的程度。
But I think there's another debate to be asked, which is the level of control we have over our tax money,
但我觉得另外一个争论可以被提出，那就是我们对于我们的税务的控制度，
that what costs us 10 pounds in one context can be a curse;
在某种情况下花的10英镑可能是个诅咒，
what costs us 10 pounds in a different context, we may actually welcome.
而在另一种情况下花去的10英镑可能倍受欢迎。
You know, pay 20,000 pounds in tax toward health, and you're merely feeling a mug.
你知道吗，当你为医疗交了2万英镑的税，你可能觉得被打劫了。
Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward, and you're called a philanthropist.
但当你为捐助一个医院病房而交了2万英镑，你会被称为慈善家。
I'm probably in the wrong country to talk about willingness to pay tax.
我可能是在一个错误的国家里提到纳税的意愿。
So I'll give you one in return: how you frame things really matters.
那我换一个例子，看看你们是如何定义重要的事情的。
Do you call it "The bailout of Greece"? Or "The bailout of a load of stupid banks which lent to Greece"?
你们称它为“对于希腊的紧急援助，” 还是“对于一帮愚蠢到贷款给希腊的银行的紧急援助？”
Because they are actually the same thing. What you call them actually affects how you react to them, viscerally and morally.
因为它们其实讲的是同一件事情。你称呼它们的方法会影响到你们感情上以及道德上的反应。
I think psychological value is great, to be absolutely honest.
说实话，我觉得心理价值非常重要。
One of my great friends, a professor called Nick Chater, who's the Professor of Decision Sciences in London,
我最好的朋友之一、一个名叫Nick Chater的教授，他是伦敦的决策学教授，
believes we should spend far less time looking into humanity's hidden depths, and spend much more time exploring the hidden shallows.
他觉得我们与其花费时间来观察人性隐藏的深度，不如花更多的时间来探索它隐藏的表性。
I think that's true, actually. I think impressions have an insane effect on what we think and what we do.
我觉得这是对的。我觉得印象对我们的思想以及活动有着很大的影响。
But what we don't have is a really good model of human psychology -- at least pre-Kahneman, perhaps,
但我们并没有一个很好的人类心理学的典型。至少在卡尔曼之前，
we didn't have a really good model of human psychology to put alongside models of engineering, of neoclassical economics.
我们没有一个很好的、可以和工程以及新古典主义经济学的模型相提并论的模型。
So people who believed in psychological solutions didn't have a model. We didn't have a framework.
因此那些相信心理学解释的人们没有可用的模型。我们没有理论框架可用。
This is what Warren Buffett's business partner Charlie Munger calls "a latticework on which to hang your ideas."
这就是沃伦·巴菲特的生意合作伙伴查理·芒格所称的“一个用来悬挂你的想法的格子框架。”
Engineers, economists, classical economists all had a very, very robust existing latticework on which practically every idea could be hung.
工程师、经济学家、古典主义经济学家，他们都有非常结实的格子框架来悬挂他们每一个想法。
We merely have a collection of random individual insights without an overall model.
我们却没有一个全面性的模型，只有一堆随机的个人想法。
And what that means is that, in looking at solutions,
这就意味当我们寻求解决方案时，
we've probably given too much priority to what I call technical engineering solutions, Newtonian solutions,
我们太过侧重于工程学方面的、牛顿思维的办法，
and not nearly enough to the psychological ones.
而对心理学方向的关注远远不足。
You know my example of the Eurostar:
你们都知道我那个关于欧洲之星的例子：
six million pounds spent to reduce the journey time between Paris and London by about 40 minutes.
六百万英镑花在了将巴黎与伦敦之间的车程缩短40分钟上。
For 0.01 percent of this money, you could have put wi-fi on the trains, which wouldn't have reduced the duration of the journey,
但只要花去这笔钱的1%，你就可以让列车拥有WiFi网络，这虽然不会缩短旅程的时间，
but would have improved its enjoyment and its usefulness far more.
但会大大增加旅程的乐趣和用途。
For maybe 10 percent of the money, you could have paid all of the world's top male and female supermodels
用这笔钱的10%，你就能请到全世界的男女超级名模，
to walk up and down the train handing out free Chateau Petrus to all the passengers.
在走道上向所有旅客分发免费的波得路堡葡萄酒。
You'd still have five million pounds in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.
你还能剩下50亿英镑，旅客还可能会要求列车减速。
Why were we not given the chance to solve that problem psychologically?
我们为什么从未尝试从心理学的角度来解决问题？
I think it's because there's an imbalance, an asymmetry in the way we treat creative,
我想这是因为我们对待以下两种思维方式是不平衡、不对称的，
emotionally driven psychological ideas versus the way we treat rational, numerical, spreadsheet-driven ideas.
一种是创造性的、情绪引导的心理学思维方式，另一种理性的、数据的、报表引导的思维方式。
If you're a creative person, I think, quite rightly,
如果你是一个创造性的人，
you have to share all your ideas for approval with people much more rational than you.
你必须将自己的想法分享给更理性的人，获得他们的赞同。
You have to go in and have a cost-benefit analysis, a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth.
你必须给出一个成本收益分析，一个可行性研究，投资回报率分析之类的东西。
And I think that's probably right. But this does not apply the other way around.
这也许没有错，但当情况反过来时却是行不通的。
People who have an existing framework -- an economic framework, an engineering framework
那些已有理论框架、经济学框架、工程学框架，
feel that, actually, logic is its own answer. What they don't say is,
认为逻辑是自身的答案。他们不会说：
"Well, the numbers all seem to add up, but before I present this idea,
“数字看来是没错，但在报告这个想法之前，
I'll show it to some really crazy people to see if they can come up with something better."
我要去问问那些真正疯狂的人，看他们能不能有更好的想法。”
And so we -- artificially, I think -- prioritize what I'd call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.
所以我们人为地将机械化思维置于心理学思维之上。
An example of a great psychological idea: the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction on the London Underground, per pound spent,
这里有个关于心理学解决方案的绝佳例子：伦敦地铁花钱在改善乘客满意度上最好的措施，
came when they didn't add any extra trains, nor change the frequency of the trains;
并不是增加列车数量或者改变行班间距，
they put dot matrix display boards on the platforms -- because the nature of a wait is not just dependent on its numerical quality,
而是在月台上放置了点阵显示屏，由于等待的特性并不完全取决于等待时间的长度，
its duration, but on the level of uncertainty you experience during that wait.
而是取决于你等待时所感受不确定性的程度。
Waiting seven minutes for a train with a countdown clock
在计时器的倒计时中等待7分钟，
is less frustrating and irritating than waiting four minutes, knuckle biting, going, "When's this train going to damn well arrive?"
其间的沮丧和烦躁远低于只等了四分钟，但咬着手指不断逼问：“这该死的车什么时候才来？”
Here's a beautiful example of a psychological solution deployed in Korea.
韩国也有个很棒的心理学解决方案。
Red traffic lights have a countdown delay. It's proven to reduce the accident rate in experiments. Why?
红绿灯的红灯有倒数计时。这在实验中被证实能够降低事故发生率。为什么？
Because road rage, impatience and general irritation are massively reduced when you can actually see the time you have to wait.
因为交通上的愤怒、不耐和焦躁，在你能清楚看到剩下的等待时间时被大大降低。
In China, not really understanding the principle behind this, they applied the same principle to green traffic lights...
在中国，不知为何，他们在绿灯的时候运用同样方法。
which isn't a great idea. You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go, you floor it.
这可不是个好主意。你离路口还有200码远，看到绿灯还剩5秒，就直接冲过去。
The Koreans, very assiduously, did test both.
韩国人很严谨的测试了两种情况。
The accident rate goes down when you apply this to red traffic lights; it goes up when you apply it to green traffic lights.
给红灯倒计时，事故率降低；而给绿灯倒计时，事故率则上升。
This is all I'm asking for, really, in human decision making, is the consideration of these three things.
我呼吁人们在做决策时考虑这三个方面。
I'm not asking for the complete primacy of one over the other.
它们的重要性不分先后。
I'm merely saying that when you solve problems, you should look at all three of these equally,
我只是希望当你解决问题时，同等重要地考虑这三个要素。
and you should seek as far as possible to find solutions which sit in the sweet spot in the middle.
你应尽可能地去找寻汇聚三者的完美解决方案。
If you actually look at a great business, you'll nearly always see all of these three things coming into play.
如果你实际去评估一家好公司，你几乎都会看到这三个方面的作为。
Really successful businesses -- Google is a great, great technological success,
货真价实的成功企业--谷歌是一家非常成功的科技公司，
but it's also based on a very good psychological insight:
但它同时反映出非常好的心理学洞察力。
people believe something that only does one thing is better at that thing than something that does that thing and something else.
人们相信，专注于一种业务的公司，在此种业务上要比多样化的公司做得更出色。
It's an innate thing called "goal dilution." Ayelet Fishbach has written a paper about this.
这种固有的信念叫做“目标稀释”。阿耶莱·费斯巴赫为此写了一篇的论文。
Everybody else at the time of Google, more or less, was trying to be a portal.
每一个当时在谷歌的人都在尝试着无所不为。
Yes, there's a search function, but you also have weather, sports scores, bits of news.
是的，他们有一个搜索功能，但也有天气，体育分数，小段时事。
Google understood that if you're just a search engine, people assume you're a very, very good search engine.
谷歌知道，如果你只是一个搜索引擎，人们会认为你是一个非常、非常好的搜索引擎。
All of you know this, actually, from when you go in to buy a television,
当你们去买一个电视的时候，你们都会想到这点。
and in the shabbier end of the row of flat-screen TVs,
在一排液晶电视旁边的灰暗的另一个角落，
you can see, are these rather despised things called "combined TV and DVD players."
你可以看到，一些无人问津的同时有着电视和DVD功能的机器。

And we have no knowledge whatsoever of the quality of those things, but we look at a combined TV and DVD player and we go,
我们完全不知道这些东西的质量，但我们会不屑的看着它们并说：
"Uck. It's probably a bit of a crap telly and a bit rubbish as a DVD player."
“啊，它应该比单独的电视或DVD机都要差一些。”
So we walk out of the shops with one of each. Google is as much a psychological success as it is a technological one.
所以我们每样都会买一个。谷歌在心理方面和它的技术同样的成功。
I propose that we can use psychology to solve problems that we didn't even realize were problems at all.
我提议我们也可以用心理学去解决一些我们本来都不认为是问题的问题。
This is my suggestion for getting people to finish their course of antibiotics.
这是我为了让人们服用抗生素给出的建议。
Don't give them 24 white pills; give them 18 white pills and six blue ones
不要给他们24个白色的药丸；给他们18个白色药丸和6个蓝色的药丸，
and tell them to take the white pills first, and then take the blue ones. It's called "chunking."
然后告诉他们先吃白色的药丸，再吃蓝色的药丸。这招叫组块。
The likelihood that people will get to the end is much greater when there is a milestone somewhere in the middle.
当中间有一个类似于里程碑的东西时，人们服用到最后的可能性会大大的提高。
One of the great mistakes, I think, of economics is it fails to understand that
我认为经济学最大的错误之一便是没有去真正地理解
what something is whether it's retirement, unemployment, cost -- is a function, not only of its amount, but also its meaning.
类似于退休，失业，代价这样的东西，不只是它的量的应变量，也是它的意义的应变量。
This is a toll crossing in Britain. Quite often queues happen at the tolls.
这是一个英国的收费站。收费站前很经常会排起长队。
Sometimes you get very, very severe queues. You could apply the same principle, actually, to the security lanes in airports.
有些时候队会非常非常的长。同样的原理可以被运用到机场的安检线。
What would happen if you could actually pay twice as much money to cross the bridge, but go through a lane that's an express lane?
当你可以在付两倍的钱后通过一个快速的车道后，会发生些什么？
It's not an unreasonable thing to do; it's an economically efficient thing to do.
它不是一个不合理的事情，而是一个有效率的事情。
Time means more to some people than others.
对于一些人来说，它们的时间比其他的人重要。
If you're waiting trying to get to a job interview, you'd patently pay a couple of pounds more to go through the fast lane.
如果你在等着参加一个工作面试，你毫无疑问的会付双倍的钱而走快捷车道。
If you're on the way to visit your mother-in-law, you'd probably prefer... you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.
如果你正在去拜访你的岳母，你或许会偏向在左边等待。
The only problem is if you introduce this economically efficient solution, people hate it...
唯一的问题是，当你启用这个有效率的方式，人们会讨厌它，
because they think you're deliberately creating delays at the bridge in order to maximize your revenue,
因为他们觉得你有意的在桥前造成堵塞来增加收入，
and, "Why on earth should I pay to subsidize your incompetence?"
以及“为什么我们需要为你们的无能付钱？”
On the other hand, change the frame slightly and create charitable yield management,
但换个角度来说，把这个想法的框架做微小的改变，使它变成慈善的收入，
so the extra money you get goes not to the bridge company, it goes to charity...
使这些多余的钱不会进入建桥的公司的口袋而被用于慈善事业，
and the mental willingness to pay completely changes.
人们的想法会完全的不一样。
You have a relatively economically efficient solution,
你会有一个有效率的解决方式，
but one that actually meets with public approval and even a small degree of affection, rather than being seen as bastardy.
并且它会被公众批准，甚至赞扬，而不是批判。
So where economists make the fundamental mistake is they think that money is money.
当经济学家做出错误的决定时，他们只把钱当成了钱。
Actually, my pain experienced in paying five pounds is not just proportionate to the amount, but where I think that money is going.
但实际上我对多付5英镑的意见并不是在于这个数额，而是这笔钱的去处。
And I think understanding that could revolutionize tax policy.
而我认为，理解这一点会对税收政策造成巨大的变化。
It could revolutionize the public services. It could actually change things quite significantly.
它也可以改变公众服务。它真的可以大幅度的改变很多事情。
Here's a guy you all need to study.
这是一个你们都需要研究的人。
He's an Austrian School economist who was first active in the first half of the 20th century in Vienna.
他是一个在20世纪前半叶的维也纳非常活跃的奥地利学派经济学家。
What was interesting about the Austrian School is they actually grew up alongside Freud.
关于奥地利学派的一个很有意思的事情便是，他们成长于弗洛伊德的时代。
And so they're predominantly interested in psychology.
所以他们对心理学非常感兴趣。
They believed that there was a discipline called praxeology, which is a prior discipline to the study of economics.
他们认为一门叫做“人类行为学”的学科必须被作为经济学的首要学科。
Praxeology is the study of human choice, action and decision-making. I think they're right.
人类行为学学习人类的选择，行动以及做出决定的方式。我觉得他们是对的。
I think the danger we have in today's world is we have the study of economics considers itself to be a prior discipline to the study of human psychology.
现今世界的危险在于，我们现有的经济学认为自身比人类心理学更重要。
But as Charlie Munger says, "If economics isn't behavioral, I don't know what the hell is."
但正如查理·孟格所言：“如果经济不具备行为学的特质，那么我就不知道它是什么东西。”
Von Mises, interestingly, believes economics is just a subset of psychology.
有意思的是，冯·米塞斯认为，经济学只是心理学的分支。
I think he just refers to economics as "the study of human praxeology under conditions of scarcity."
他认为经济学只是“在稀有条件下的人类行为学研究”。
But Von Mises, among many other things,
冯·米塞斯在诸多贡献中，
I think uses an analogy which is probably the best justification and explanation for the value of marketing, the value of perceived value
最重要的是他运用了最佳的类比，来说明销售的价值和感知价值。
and the fact that we should treat it as being absolutely equivalent to any other kind of value.
事实上我们应绝对平等的对待感知价值，一如其他种类的价值。
We tend to, all of us, even those of us who work in marketing, think of value in two ways:
我们所有人，甚至是从事销售的人，都倾向于把价值分为两种：
the real value, which is when you make something in a factory or provide a service
一种是真实价值，就是在工厂制造商品或提供服务，
and then there's a dubious value, which you create by changing the way people look at things.
另一种是不确定的价值，来自于改变人们对事物的观感。
Von Mises completely rejected this distinction.
冯·米塞斯完全反对这种区别。
And he used this following analogy: he referred to strange economists called the French physiocrats,
他用的是以下的类比：他提到一个叫做法国重农主义的古怪经济学派，
who believed that the only true value was what you extracted from the land.
他们相信只有土地的产出物才有真正的价值。
So if you're a shepherd or a quarryman or a farmer, you created true value.
所以如果你是牧羊人、矿工或农民，你才创造真正的价值。
If however, you bought some wool from the shepherd and charged a premium for converting it into a hat,
但如果有人从牧羊人手中买下羊毛做成帽子，赚取更高利润，
you weren't actually creating value, you were exploiting the shepherd.
你就不是创造价值，而是在剥削牧羊人。
Now, Von Mises said that modern economists make exactly the same mistake with regard to advertising and marketing.
冯·米塞斯提出现代经济学，在对待广告和行销上犯了一模一样的错误。
He says if you run a restaurant, there is no healthy distinction to be made
他说，如果你经营一家餐馆，你没办法去严格区分
between the value you create by cooking the food and the value you create by sweeping the floor.
烹饪食物所创造的价值和打扫地板的价值。
One of them creates, perhaps, the primary product -- the thing we think we're paying for
前一项创造了主要产品，消费者认为花钱购买的是菜肴，
the other one creates a context within which we can enjoy and appreciate that product.
另一项则创造了环境，消费者在这个环境中享用产品。
And the idea that one of them should have priority over the other is fundamentally wrong.
认为一项比另一项更重要。这会是个根本性的错误。
Try this quick thought experiment: imagine a restaurant that serves Michelin-starred food,
让我们来做个快速的思维实验：想像一家提供米其林星级水准食物的餐厅，
but where the restaurant smells of sewage and there's human feces on the floor.
但餐厅里恶臭弥漫，地板上屎尿横流。
The best thing you can do there to create value is not actually to improve the food still further,
你在这家餐厅创造价值的最好方法，不是去更进一步提升菜肴品质，
it's to get rid of the smell and clean up the floor. And it's vital we understand this.
而是去除异味，清洁地板。理解这点至关重要。
If that seems like a sort of strange, abstruse thing
如果这看起来古怪、荒谬，
in the UK, the post office had a 98 percent success rate at delivering first-class mail the next day.
英国邮政有98%的成功投递率让平信隔天送达。
They decided this wasn't good enough, and they wanted to get it up to 99.
他们认为这还不够好，想要把结果提升到99%。
The effort to do that almost broke the organization.
为了做这样的事差点毁了整个组织。
If, at the same time, you'd gone and asked people, "What percentage of first-class mail arrives the next day?"
如果你同时去问民众“平信隔天寄到的比率有多少？”
the average answer, or the modal answer, would have been "50 to 60 percent."
一般典型的回答是50%-60%。
Now, if your perception is much worse than your reality, what on earth are you doing trying to change the reality?
如果公众感知远远低于实际情况，你为什么还要去改变实际情况？这
That's like trying to improve the food in a restaurant that stinks.
就像试着在臭餐厅里提升食物品质。
What you need to do is, first of all, tell people that 98 percent of first-class mail gets there the next day.
你需要做的，首先是去告诉民众平信隔天到达的比率已达到98%。
That's pretty good. I would argue, in Britain, there's a much better frame of reference,
这已经很不错了。不过我认为，在英国还有更好用的说法，
which is to tell people that more first-class mail arrives the next day in the UK than in Germany,
就是告诉民众英国平信的隔日送达率超过德国，
because generally, in Britain, if you want to make us happy about something, just tell us we do it better than the Germans.
因为一般来说，你如果想要英国人高兴，就告诉他们我们做得比德国好。
Choose your frame of reference and the perceived value, and therefore, the actual value is completely transformed.
选择对的思想框架和感知价值，实际价值便会完全被改变。
It has to be said of the Germans that the Germans and the French are doing a brilliant job of creating a united Europe.
我们必须承认，德国人和法国人正在为一个团结的欧洲做出很大的努力。
The only thing they didn't expect is they're uniting Europe through a shared mild hatred of the French and Germans.
他们唯一没有料到的是，这个团结的欧洲，都对法国人和德国人有些轻微憎恨。
But I'm British; that's the way we like it.
但我是英国人，我喜欢这样的结果。
What you'll also notice is that, in any case, our perception is leaky.
你也要注意，我们的感知是有漏洞的。
We can't tell the difference between the quality of the food and the environment in which we consume it.
我们不能区分食物的质量以及我们在享受食物的环境。
All of you will have seen this phenomenon if you have your car washed or valeted.
只要洗过车，你就会观察到这样的现象。
When you drive away, your car feels as if it drives better.
当你开走时，会感觉车子更好开了。
And the reason for this -- unless my car valet mysteriously is changing the oil
而原因便是，除非我的汽车清洗员偷偷的换了机油
and performing work which I'm not paying him for and I'm unaware of -- is because perception is, in any case, leaky.
并做了一些我没有付费以及我不知道的工作，这是因为感知总是有漏洞的。
Analgesics that are branded are more effective at reducing pain than analgesics that are not branded.
名牌的止痛剂相对于没有牌的止痛剂有更好的减除疼痛的效果。
I don't just mean through reported pain reduction -- actual measured pain reduction.
我的论据并不是患者自己说疼痛减轻，而是实际测量的疼痛减轻。
And so perception actually is leaky in any case.
所以说，感知总是有漏洞的。
So if you do something that's perceptually bad in one respect, you can damage the other. Thank you very much.
所以如果你在做一件从一方面的感知是坏的事情，那么你也可以对另外一面造成伤害。非常感谢。