ADM-201 dump PMP dumps pdf SSCP exam materials CBAP exam sample questions

认知偏见:参照依赖和损失厌恶 – 译学馆
未登陆,请登陆后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

认知偏见:参照依赖和损失厌恶

CRITICAL THINKING - Cognitive Biases: Reference Dependence and Loss Aversion [HD]

[序乐]
(intro music)
我叫劳里·桑托斯
My name is Laurie Santos.
在耶鲁大学教心理学
I teach psychology at Yale University,
今天要给大家讲的是 参照依赖和损失厌恶
and today I want to talk to you about reference dependence and loss aversion.
这堂课是认知偏见系列课程的一部分
This lecture is part of a series on cognitive biases.
假设你是一名医生
Imagine that you’re a doctor
负责带领医疗队伍攻克一种新型致命流感
heading a medical team that’s trying to fight a new strain of deadly flu,
这种流感正以惊人的速度大肆传染
one that’s currently spreading at an alarming rate.
此新型流感破坏力极大
The new flu is so devastating
目前受感染者已达6亿人数
that six hundred million people have already been infected,
若无相应措施 他们的生命将危在旦夕
and if nothing is done, all of them will die.
好消息是 现有两种药物可用于治疗该疾病
The good news is there are two drugs available to treat the disease
且你的团队可以决定大量生产哪种药物
and your team can decide which one to put into mass production.
临床试验表明 若选择生产药物A
Clinical trials show that if you go with the first drug, drug A,
将能让2亿人得救
you’ll be able to save two hundred millionof the infected people.
而选择生产药物B
The second option is drug B, which has a
则能有1/3的几率救活全部6亿人
one-third chance of saving all six hundred million people,
但有2/3的几率一个人也无法得救
but a two-thirds chance that no one infected will be saved.
你会选择哪种药物呢?
Which drug do you pick?
或许你会认为药物A是最好的选择
You probably thought drug A was the best one.
毕竟 有了药物A
After all, with drug A,
有2亿人百分百可以得救
two hundred million people will be saved for sure,
这个结果十分乐观
which is a pretty good outcome.
假设你的团队现在面临着一个与此稍微不同的选择
But now imagine that your team is faced with a slightly different choice.
这次是在药物C和药物D之间选择
This time, it’s between drug C and drug D.
若选择药物C
If you choose drug C,
将会百分百让4亿受感染者完蛋
four hundred million infected people will die for sure.
若选择药物D
If you choose drug D,
将有1/3的几率使受感染者无一完蛋
there’s a one-third chance that no one infected will die,
2/3的几率使6亿受感染者全部完蛋
and a two-thirds chance that six hundred million infected people will die.
在此情形下 你会选择哪种药物呢?
Which drug do you choose in this case?
我敢说 你大概率会选择药物D
I bet you probably went with drug D.
毕竟 没人会完蛋的几率
After all, a chance that no one will die
看起来很值得一赌
seems like a pretty good bet.
多数人都会在第一种情况下选择药物A
If you picked drug A in the first scenario
而在第二种情况下选择药物D
and drug D in the second, you’re not alone.
行为经济学家丹尼尔·卡尼曼和阿摩司·特沃斯基
When behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky
用这两种情形询问大学生时
gave these scenarios to college students,
72%的学生认为 药物A比药物B好
seventy-two percent of people said that drug A was better than B,
78%的学生认为 药物D比药物C好
and seventy-eight percent of people said that drug D was better than C.
现在我们稍微换个角度来看这两组结果
But let’s take a slightly different look at both sets of outcomes.
确切地说 是用存活人数和死亡人数
In fact, let’s depicted both choices
来描述这两组选择
in terms of the number of people who will live and die.
这是你面临的第一个选择
Here’s your first choice.
药物A可以百分百救活2亿人
Drug A will save two hundred million people for sure,
而药物B有1/3的几率救活全部6亿人
and for drug B, there’s a one-third chance that all six hundred million infected people will be saved
2/3的几率一个人也救不活
and a two-thirds chance that no one infected will be saved.
现在用同样的方式描述药物C和药物D
And now, let’s do the same thing for drugs C and D.
你会吃惊地发现这两组选择是一样的
Surprisingly, you can now see that the two options are identical.
药物A和药物C都能救活2亿人
Drugs A and C will save two hundred million people,
而使4亿人完蛋
while four hundred million people are certain to die.
而药物B和药物D
And with both drug B and drug D,
皆有1/3的几率救活全部6亿人
you have a one-third chance of saving all six hundred million people
2/3的几率使全部人完蛋
and a two-thirds chance of saving no one.
我们可以讨论究竟是选择救活2亿人好
We can argue about whether it’s better to save two hundred million people for sure,
还是选择1/3的几率救活全部人好
or to take a one-third chance of saving all of them.
但这里需要明确的是
But one thing should be clear from the example:
大家在选择药物A而非药物B的同时
it’s pretty weird for you to prefer drug A over B
又选择药物D而非药物C 是很奇怪的
at the same time as you prefer drug D over C.
毕竟药物是相同的 只是标签稍微不同
After all, they’re exactly the same drugswith slightly different labels.
为什么措辞的小小变化
Why does a simple change in wording
会改变我们对相同选择的判断呢?
change our judgments about exactly the same options?
卡尼曼和特沃斯基解释道
Kahneman and Tversky figured out
这种奇怪的效应产生于
that this strange effect results from
两种影响人类选择的经典偏见
two classic biases that affect human choice,
分别为“参照依赖”和“损失厌恶”
biases known as “reference dependence” and “loss aversion”.
“参照依赖”是指
“Reference dependence” just refers to the fact
我们进行决策时 并不是根据绝对情况
that we think about our decisions not in terms of absolutes,
而是与某种现状或底线进行对比
but relative to some status quo or baseline.
因此 你在地上捡到1美元
This is why, when you find a dollar on the ground,
却不会将它视为你全部资本净值的一部分
you don’t think about that dollar as part of your entire net worth.
相反 你认为这使你的现状发生了变化
Instead, you think in terms of the change that the dollar made your status quo.
你会想 “嘿 我多得了1美元”
You think,”Hey, I’m one dollar richer!”
由于参照依赖
because of reference dependence,
你不会根据绝对的救活人数
you don’t think of the options presented earlier
来考虑前一种选择
in terms of the absolute number of lives saved.
相反 你在每个选择和现状之间做对比
Instead, you frame each choice relative to some status quo.
这就是措辞很重要的原因
And that’s why the wording matters.
情形一是根据救活人数描述的
The first scenario is described in terms of the number of life saved.
这就是你的参照点
That’s your reference point.
于是你会根据你可以多救活多少人来判断
You’re thinking in terms of how many additional lives you can save.
而在情形二中
And in the second,
你会根据你可以少死多少人来判断
you think relative to how many less lives you can lose.
由于担心损失人命 第二种情形
And that second part, worrying about losing lives,
会导致另一种影响你选择的偏见:损失厌恶
leads to the second bias that’s affecting your choices: loss aversion.
损失厌恶是指我们不愿去做会导致损失的选择
Loss aversion is our reluctance to make choices that lead to losses.
我们不喜欢失去东西 不管是钱
We don’t like losing stuff, whether it’s money,
生命 甚或是糖果
or lives, or even candy.
我们会直觉地不惜一切代价去规避潜在损失
We have an instinct to avoid potential losses at all costs.
经济学家发现 损失厌恶
Economists have found that loss aversion
会导致我们做出一堆不明智的事情
causes us to do a bunch of irrational stuff.
损失厌恶导致人们死守
Loss aversion causes people to hold onto property
正在房市中贬值的房产
that’s losing in value in the housing market,
原因就在于 他们不想亏本卖出房产
just because they don’t want to sell their assets at a loss.
损失厌恶也会使人们做不明智的投资
Loss aversion also leads people to invest more poorly,
甚至因为害怕那一点点可能的损失
even avoid risky stocks that overall will do well,
而规避大体上走势好但有小概率风险的股票
because we’re afraid of a small probability of losses.
损失厌恶导致我们囿于这一事实
Loss aversion causes us to latch onto the fact
即药物C和药物D均涉及到损失生命
that drugs C and D involve losing lives.
我们对任何潜在损失的厌恶
Our aversion to any potential losses
导致我们避开药物C而选择药物D
causes us to avoid drug C and to go with drug D,
因为药物D有不损失人命的可能性
which is the chance of not losing anyone.
当我们听到药物A和药物B的表述时
Our loss aversion isn’t as activated
我们的损失厌恶心理并没有被激活
when we hear about drugs A and B.
因为这两种药物都提及到救人
Both of them involve saving people,
所以为何不放弃药物B
so why not go with the safe option,
选择更为稳妥的药物A呢?
drug A over drug B?
仅仅用不同的方式描述结果
Merely describing the outcomes differently
就能改变我们认为更厌恶的情形
changes which scenarios we find more aversive.
一旦提及到损失 我们就想把损失最小化
If losses are mentioned, we want to reduce them as much as possible,
这使我们承担的风险比往常愿意的多一些
so much so that we take on a bit more risk than we usually like
因此 用两种截然相反的方式描述决策
So describing the decision one way, as opposed to another,
会导致我们做出截然不同的选择
can cause us to make a completely different choice.
即使是在这种生死攸关的关头
even in a life-or-death decision like this,
我们也受制于我们解读信息的方式
we’re at the mercy of how our minds interpret information.
而我们解读信息的方式受制于我们的认知偏见
And how our minds interpret information is at the mercy of our cognitive biases.

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述

本视频主要由耶鲁大学心理学教授介绍两种认知偏见:参照依赖和损失厌恶。

听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

Estherrr

审核员

审核员B

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBNtChg4t4k

相关推荐