Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • I'm going to talk today

  • about the pleasures of everyday life.

  • But I want to begin with a story

  • of an unusual and terrible man.

  • This is Hermann Goering.

  • Goering was Hitler's second in command in World War II,

  • his designated successor.

  • And like Hitler,

  • Goering fancied himself a collector of art.

  • He went through Europe, through World War II,

  • stealing, extorting and occasionally buying

  • various paintings for his collection.

  • And what he really wanted was something by Vermeer.

  • Hitler had two of them, and he didn't have any.

  • So he finally found an art dealer,

  • a Dutch art dealer named Han van Meegeren,

  • who sold him a wonderful Vermeer

  • for the cost of what would now be 10 million dollars.

  • And it was his favorite artwork ever.

  • World War II came to an end,

  • and Goering was captured, tried at Nuremberg

  • and ultimately sentenced to death.

  • Then the allied forces went through his collections

  • and found the paintings

  • and went after the people who sold it to him.

  • And at some point the Dutch police came into Amsterdam

  • and arrested Van Meegeren.

  • Van Meegeren was charged with the crime of treason,

  • which is itself punishable by death.

  • Six weeks into his prison sentence,

  • Van Meegeren confessed.

  • But he didn't confess to treason.

  • He said, "I did not sell a great masterpiece

  • to that Nazi.

  • I painted it myself; I'm a forger."

  • Now nobody believed him.

  • And he said, "I'll prove it.

  • Bring me a canvas and some paint,

  • and I will paint a Vermeer much better

  • than I sold that disgusting Nazi.

  • I also need alcohol and morphine, because it's the only way I can work."

  • (Laughter)

  • So they brought him in.

  • He painted a beautiful Vermeer.

  • And then the charges of treason were dropped.

  • He had a lesser charge of forgery,

  • got a year sentence

  • and died a hero to the Dutch people.

  • There's a lot more to be said about Van Meegeren,

  • but I want to turn now to Goering,

  • who's pictured here being interrogated at Nuremberg.

  • Now Goering was, by all accounts, a terrible man.

  • Even for a Nazi, he was a terrible man.

  • His American interrogators described him

  • as an amicable psychopath.

  • But you could feel sympathy

  • for the reaction he had

  • when he was told that his favorite painting

  • was actually a forgery.

  • According to his biographer,

  • "He looked as if for the first time

  • he had discovered there was evil in the world."

  • (Laughter)

  • And he killed himself soon afterwards.

  • He had discovered after all

  • that the painting he thought was this

  • was actually that.

  • It looked the same,

  • but it had a different origin, it was a different artwork.

  • It wasn't just him who was in for a shock.

  • Once Van Meegeren was on trial, he couldn't stop talking.

  • And he boasted about all the great masterpieces

  • that he himself had painted

  • that were attributed to other artists.

  • In particular, "The Supper at Emmaus"

  • which was viewed as Vermeer's finest masterpiece, his best work --

  • people would come from all over the world to see it --

  • was actually a forgery.

  • It was not that painting, but that painting.

  • And when that was discovered,

  • it lost all its value and was taken away from the museum.

  • Why does this matter?

  • You psychologists, why do origins matter so much?

  • Why do we respond so much

  • to our knowledge of where something comes from?

  • Well there's an answer to that many people would give.

  • Many sociologists like Veblen and Wolfe

  • would argue that the reason why we take origins so seriously

  • is because we're snobs, because we're focused on status.

  • Among other things,

  • if you want to show off how rich you are, how powerful you are,

  • it's always better to own an original than a forgery

  • because there's always going to be fewer originals than forgeries.

  • I don't doubt that that plays some role,

  • but what I want to convince you of today

  • is that there's something else going on.

  • I want to convince you

  • that humans are, to some extent, natural born essentialists.

  • What I mean by this

  • is we don't just respond to things as we see them,

  • or feel them, or hear them.

  • Rather, our response is conditioned on our beliefs,

  • but what they really are, what they came from,

  • what they're made of, what their hidden nature is.

  • I want to suggest that this is true,

  • not just for how we think about things,

  • but how we react to things.

  • So I want to suggest that pleasure is deep --

  • and that this isn't true

  • just for higher level pleasures like art,

  • but even the most seemingly simple pleasures

  • are affected by our beliefs about hidden essences.

  • So take food.

  • Would you eat this?

  • Well, a good answer is, "It depends. What is it?"

  • Some of you would eat it if it's pork, but not beef.

  • Some of you would eat it if it's beef, but not pork.

  • Few of you would eat it if it's a rat

  • or a human.

  • Some of you would eat it only if it's a strangely colored piece of tofu.

  • That's not so surprising.

  • But what's more interesting

  • is how it tastes to you

  • will depend critically on what you think you're eating.

  • So one demonstration of this was done with young children.

  • How do you make children

  • not just be more likely to eat carrots and drink milk,

  • but to get more pleasure from eating carrots and drinking milk --

  • to think they taste better?

  • It's simple, you tell them they're from McDonald's.

  • They believe McDonald's food is tastier,

  • and it leads them to experience it as tastier.

  • How do you get adults to really enjoy wine?

  • It's very simple:

  • pour it from an expensive bottle.

  • There are now dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies showing

  • that if you believe you're drinking the expensive stuff,

  • it tastes better to you.

  • This was recently done with a neuroscientific twist.

  • They get people into a dMRI scanner,

  • and while they're lying there, through a tube,

  • they get to sip wine.

  • In front of them on a screen is information about the wine.

  • Everybody, of course,

  • drinks exactly the same wine.

  • But if you believe you're drinking expensive stuff,

  • parts of the brain associated with pleasure and reward

  • light up like a Christmas tree.

  • It's not just that you say it's more pleasurable, you say you like it more,

  • you really experience it in a different way.

  • Or take sex.

  • These are stimuli I've used in some of my studies.

  • And if you simply show people these pictures,

  • they'll say these are fairly attractive people.

  • But how attractive you find them,

  • how sexually or romantically moved you are by them,

  • rests critically on who you think you're looking at.

  • You probably think the picture on the left is male,

  • the one on the right is female.

  • If that belief turns out to be mistaken, it will make a difference.

  • (Laughter)

  • It will make a difference if they turn out to be

  • much younger or much older than you think they are.

  • It will make a difference if you were to discover

  • that the person you're looking at with lust

  • is actually a disguised version of your son or daughter,

  • your mother or father.

  • Knowing somebody's your kin typically kills the libido.

  • Maybe one of the most heartening findings

  • from the psychology of pleasure

  • is there's more to looking good than your physical appearance.

  • If you like somebody, they look better to you.

  • This is why spouses in happy marriages

  • tend to think that their husband or wife

  • looks much better than anyone else thinks that they do.

  • (Laughter)

  • A particularly dramatic example of this

  • comes from a neurological disorder known as Capgras syndrome.

  • So Capgras syndrome is a disorder

  • where you get a specific delusion.

  • Sufferers of Capgras syndrome

  • believe that the people they love most in the world

  • have been replaced by perfect duplicates.

  • Now often, a result of Capgras syndrome is tragic.

  • People have murdered those that they loved,

  • believing they were murdering an imposter.

  • But there's at least one case

  • where Capgras syndrome had a happy ending.

  • This was recorded in 1931.

  • "Research described a woman with Capgras syndrome

  • who complained about her poorly endowed and sexually inadequate lover."

  • But that was before she got Capgras syndrome.

  • After she got it, "She was happy to report

  • that she has discovered that he possessed a double

  • who was rich, virile, handsome and aristocratic."

  • Of course, it was the same man,

  • but she was seeing him in different ways.

  • As a third example,

  • consider consumer products.

  • So one reason why you might like something is its utility.

  • You can put shoes on your feet; you can play golf with golf clubs;

  • and chewed up bubble gum doesn't do anything at all for you.

  • But each of these three objects has value

  • above and beyond what it can do for you

  • based on its history.

  • The golf clubs were owned by John F. Kennedy

  • and sold for three-quarters of a million dollars at auction.

  • The bubble gum was chewed up by pop star Britney Spears

  • and sold for several hundreds of dollars.

  • And in fact, there's a thriving market

  • in the partially eaten food of beloved people.

  • (Laughter)

  • The shoes are perhaps the most valuable of all.

  • According to an unconfirmed report,

  • a Saudi millionaire offered 10 million dollars

  • for this pair of shoes.

  • They were the ones thrown at George Bush

  • at an Iraqi press conference several years ago.

  • (Applause)

  • Now this attraction to objects

  • doesn't just work for celebrity objects.

  • Each one of us, most people,

  • have something in our life that's literally irreplaceable,

  • in that it has value because of its history --

  • maybe your wedding ring, maybe your child's baby shoes --

  • so that if it was lost, you couldn't get it back.

  • You could get something that looked like it or felt like it,

  • but you couldn't get the same object back.

  • With my colleagues George Newman and Gil Diesendruck,

  • we've looked to see what sort of factors, what sort of history, matters

  • for the objects that people like.

  • So in one of our experiments,

  • we asked people to name a famous person who they adored,

  • a living person they adored.

  • So one answer was George Clooney.

  • Then we asked them,

  • "How much would you pay for George Clooney's sweater?"

  • And the answer is a fair amount --

  • more than you would pay for a brand new sweater

  • or a sweater owned by somebody who you didn't adore.

  • Then we asked other groups of subjects --

  • we gave them different restrictions

  • and different conditions.

  • So for instance, we told some people,

  • "Look, you can buy the sweater,

  • but you can't tell anybody you own it,

  • and you can't resell it."

  • That drops the value of it,

  • suggesting that that's one reason why we like it.

  • But what really causes an effect

  • is you tell people, "Look, you could resell it, you could boast about it,

  • but before it gets to you,

  • it's thoroughly washed."

  • That causes a huge drop in the value.

  • As my wife put it, "You've washed away the Clooney cooties."

  • (Laughter)

  • So let's go back to art.

  • I would love a Chagall. I love the work of Chagall.

  • If people want to get me something at the end of the conference,

  • you could buy me a Chagall.

  • But I don't want a duplicate,

  • even if I can't tell the difference.

  • That's not because, or it's not simply because,

  • I'm a snob and want to boast about having an original.

  • Rather, it's because I want something that has a specific history.

  • In the case of artwork,

  • the history is special indeed.

  • The philosopher Denis Dutton

  • in his wonderful book "The Art Instinct"

  • makes the case that, "The value of an artwork

  • is rooted in assumptions about the human performance underlying its creation."

  • And that could explain the difference

  • between an original and a forgery.

  • They may look alike, but they have a different history.

  • The original is typically the product of a creative act,

  • the forgery isn't.

  • I think this approach can explain differences

  • in people's taste in art.

  • This is a work by Jackson Pollock.

  • Who here likes the work of Jackson Pollock?

  • Okay. Who here, it does nothing for them?

  • They just don't like it.

  • I'm not going to make a claim about who's right,

  • but I will make an empirical claim

  • about people's intuitions,

  • which is that, if you like the work of Jackson Pollock,

  • you'll tend more so than the people who don't like it

  • to believe that these works are difficult to create,

  • that they require a lot of time and energy

  • and creative energy.

  • I use Jackson Pollock on purpose as an example

  • because there's a young American artist

  • who paints very much in the style of Jackson Pollock,

  • and her work was worth

  • many tens of thousands of dollars --

  • in large part because she's a very young artist.

  • This is Marla Olmstead

  • who did most of her work when she was three years old.

  • The interesting thing about Marla Olmstead

  • is her family made the mistake

  • of inviting the television program 60 Minutes II into their house

  • to film her painting.

  • And they then reported that her father was coaching her.

  • When this came out on television,

  • the value of her art dropped to nothing.

  • It was the same art, physically,

  • but the history had changed.

  • I've been focusing now on the visual arts,

  • but I want to give two examples from music.

  • This is Joshua Bell, a very famous violinist.

  • And the Washington Post reporter Gene Weingarten

  • decided to enlist him for an audacious experiment.

  • The question is: How much would people like Joshua Bell,

  • the music of Joshua Bell,

  • if they didn't know they were listening to Joshua Bell?

  • So he got Joshua Bell to take his million dollar violin

  • down to a Washington D.C. subway station

  • and stand in the corner and see how much money he would make.

  • And here's a brief clip of this.

  • (Violin Music)

  • After being there for three-quarters of an hour,

  • he made $32.

  • Not bad. It's also not good.

  • Apparently to really enjoy the music of Joshua Bell,

  • you have to know you're listening to Joshua Bell.

  • He actually made $20 more than that,

  • but he didn't count it.

  • Because this woman comes up --

  • you see at the end of the video -- she comes up.

  • She had heard him at the Library of Congress a few weeks before

  • at this extravagant black-tie affair.

  • So she's stunned that he's standing in a subway station.

  • So she's struck with pity.

  • She reaches into her purse and hands him a 20.

  • (Laughter)

  • (Applause)

  • The second example from music

  • is from John Cage's modernist composition,

  • "4'33"."

  • As many of you know,

  • this is the composition where the pianist sits at a bench,

  • opens up the piano

  • and sits and does nothing for four minutes and 33 seconds --

  • that period of silence.

  • And people have different views on this.

  • But what I want to point out

  • is you can buy this from iTunes.

  • (Laughter)

  • For a dollar ninety-nine,

  • you can listen to that silence,

  • which is different than other forms of silence.

  • (Laughter)

  • Now I've been talking so far about pleasure,

  • but what I want to suggest

  • is that everything I've said applies as well to pain.

  • And how you think about what you're experiencing,

  • your beliefs about the essence of it,

  • affect how it hurts.

  • One lovely experiment

  • was done by Kurt Gray and Dan Wegner.

  • What they did was they hooked up Harvard undergraduates

  • to an electric shock machine.

  • And they gave them a series of painful electric shocks.

  • So it was a series of five painful shocks.

  • Half of them are told that they're being given the shocks

  • by somebody in another room,

  • but the person in the other room doesn't know they're giving them shocks.

  • There's no malevolence, they're just pressing a button.

  • The first shock is recorded as very painful.

  • The second shock feels less painful, because you get a bit used to it.

  • The third drops, the fourth, the fifth.

  • The pain gets less.

  • In the other condition,

  • they're told that the person in the next room

  • is shocking them on purpose -- knows they're shocking them.

  • The first shock hurts like hell.

  • The second shock hurts just as much,

  • and the third and the fourth and the fifth.

  • It hurts more

  • if you believe somebody is doing it to you on purpose.

  • The most extreme example of this

  • is that in some cases,

  • pain under the right circumstances

  • can transform into pleasure.

  • Humans have this extraordinarily interesting property

  • that will often seek out low-level doses of pain

  • in controlled circumstances

  • and take pleasure from it --

  • as in the eating of hot chili peppers

  • and roller coaster rides.

  • The point was nicely summarized

  • by the poet John Milton

  • who wrote, "The mind is its own place,

  • and in itself can make a heaven of hell,

  • a hell of heaven."

  • And I'll end with that. Thank you.

  • (Applause)

I'm going to talk today

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B1 中級

ポール・ブルーム 幸福の原点(英語・中国語字幕版 (Paul Bloom:快樂的起源 (中英雙字幕))

  • 2576 245
    En-Ya Wang に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語