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

非理性决策背后的心理学原理 – 译学馆
未登陆,请登陆后再发表信息
最新评论 (0)
播放视频

非理性决策背后的心理学原理

The psychology behind irrational decisions - Sara Garofalo

假设你在玩博彩游戏第一轮
Let’s say you’re on a game show.
你已经赚了1000美元
You’ve already earned $1000 in the first round
当指针停留在奖励区域现在
when you land on the bonus space.
你有个选择
Now, you have a choice.
再给你500美元奖金(1000+500=1500美元)
You can either take a $500 bonus guaranteed
或者再投币一次
or you can flip a coin.
如果正面 再得到1000美元奖金(1000+1000=2000美元)
If it’s heads, you win $1000 bonus.
如果反面 什么也得不到(1000美元)
If it’s tails, you get no bonus at all.
第二轮游戏 你已经赚了2000美元 当指针停留在惩罚区域
In the second round, you’ve earned $2000 when you land on the penalty space.
现在你有另一个选择
Now you have another choice.
或者损失500美元(2000-500=1500美元)
You can either take a $500 loss,
或者再投币一次
or try your luck at the coin flip.
如果是正面 不亏不赚(2000美元)
If it’s heads, you lose nothing,
如果是反面 损失1000美元(2000-1000=1000美元)
but if it’s tails, you lose $1000 instead.
如果你和大部分人一样
If you’re like most people,
你可能会选择第一轮再拿500美元(1500美元)
you probably chose to take the guaranteed bonus in the first round
第二轮选择投币(200050%+100050%=1500美元)但是
and flip the coin in the second round.
仔细想想 完全没有道理
But if you think about it, this makes no sense.
2次的赔率和结果是完全一样的
The odds and outcomes in both rounds are exactly the same.
为什么第二轮的选择让你害怕
So why does the second round seem much scarier?
答案是我们称为“损失厌恶”的现象
The answer lies in a phenomenon known as loss aversion.
在理性经济学理论中
Under rational economic theory,
我们用一个简单的数学等式来做决定
our decisions should follow a simple mathematical equation
“风险程度”除以“赌注数量”
that weighs the level of risk against the amount at stake.
但研究发现
But studies have found that for many people,
绝大部分人害怕损失的负面心理影响
the negative psychological impact we feel from losing something
两倍于获得收益的正面心理影响
is about twice as strong as the positive impact of gaining the same thing.
“损失厌恶”是一种来自于大脑快速判断的认知失调
Loss aversion is one cognitive bias that arises from heuristics,
我们解决问题的方式来源于从前的经验和直觉
problem-solving approaches based on previous experience and intuition
而不是仔细的分析
rather than careful analysis.
脑力捷径(快速思维)导致不合理的决定
And these mental shortcuts can lead to irrational decisions,
不同于热恋
not like falling in love
或悬崖上的蹦极
or bungee jumping off a cliff,
逻辑谬误很容易被证伪
but logical fallacies that can easily be proven wrong.
当存在概率时 大脑更容易做出错误决定比如:
Situations involving probability are notoriously bad for applying heuristics.
投掷一个4面绿色2面红色的骰子
For instance, say you were to roll a die with four green faces and two red faces
20次
twenty times.
你可以在下面的结果中做出选择
You can choose one of the following sequences of rolls,
如果正确
and if it shows up, you’ll win $25.
赢25美元如何选择?
Which would you pick?
一项研究显示65%的大学生参与者
In one study, 65% of the participants who were all college students
选择B
chose sequence B
明显的A比B更短 并且包含在B中就是说
even though A is shorter and contained within B,
A更可能
in other words, more likely.
这被称为“链接谬误”
This is what’s called a conjunction fallacy.
我们期待能看见更多的绿色
Here, we expect to see more green rolls,
大脑玩弄我们 让我们选择更不可能的答案
so our brains can trick us into picking the less likely option.
“快速思考”在处理数字时也特别糟糕
Heuristics are also terrible at dealing with numbers in general.
在一个实验中 学生被分成2组
In one example, students were split into two groups.
第一组被问到:甘地死于9岁前还是后?
The first group was asked whether Mahatma Gandhi died before or after age 9,
第二组被问到:甘地死于140岁前还是后?
while the second was asked whether he died before or after age 140.
这两组问题显然都是错误的
Both numbers were obviously way off,
当学生被要求猜测甘地什么时候去世?
but when the students were then asked to guess the actual age at which he died,
第一组学生平均答案是:
the first group’s answers averaged to 50
50岁第二组:
while the second group’s averaged to 67.
67岁当然最早给出的信息都是错误的
Even though the clearly wrong information in the initial questions
应该不相关
should have been irrelevant,
仍然影响学生的判断
it still affected the students’ estimates.
这是“锚定影响”的例子
This is an example of the anchoring effect,
被用于营销和谈判
and it’s often used in marketing and negotiations
用来增加人们愿意支付的价格
to raise the prices that people are willing to pay.
如果快速思考导致上述的错误
So, if heuristics lead to all these wrong decisions,
为什么会这样?
why do we even have them?
原因是他们相当有效
Well, because they can be quite effective.
大部分人类历史
For most of human history,
当信息有限时 生存依赖于快速决定
survival depended on making quick decisions with limited information.
当我们没有时间逻辑分析所有可能性
When there’s no time to logically analyze all the possibilities,
快速决定有时能让我们活下来
heuristics can sometimes save our lives.
但今天的环境需要做出更复杂决定
But today’s environment requires far more complex decision-making,
这些决定比我们想象的还要容易存在偏见
and these decisions are more biased by unconscious factors than we think,
影响健康
affecting everything from health and education
教育经济和司法公正的方方面面
to finance and criminal justice.
我们不能关闭大脑的直觉思考
We can’t just shut off our brain’s heuristics,
但是我们应该学会了解他们
but we can learn to be aware of them.
当处理数字问题
When you come to a situation involving numbers,
概率
probability,
或者复杂决定时候
or multiple details,
等一等
pause for a second
直觉给出的答案也许根本就是错误的
and consider that the intuitive answer might not be the right one after all.

发表评论

译制信息
视频概述
听录译者

收集自网络

翻译译者

收集自网络

审核员

自动通过审核

视频来源

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2EMuoM5IX4

相关推荐