TED日本語 - ダニエル・カーネマン: 経験と記憶の謎


TED Talks(英語 日本語字幕付き動画)

TED日本語 - ダニエル・カーネマン: 経験と記憶の謎

TED Talks


The riddle of experience vs. memory


Daniel Kahneman






Everybody talks about happiness these days. I had somebody count the number of books with "happiness" in the title published in the last five years and they gave up after about 40, and there were many more. There is a huge wave of interest in happiness, among researchers. There is a lot of happiness coaching. Everybody would like to make people happier. But in spite of all this flood of work, there are several cognitive traps that sort of make it almost impossible to think straight about happiness.

And my talk today will be mostly about these cognitive traps. This applies to laypeople thinking about their own happiness, and it applies to scholars thinking about happiness, because it turns out we're just as messed up as anybody else is. The first of these traps is a reluctance to admit complexity. It turns out that the word "happiness" is just not a useful word anymore, because we apply it to too many different things. I think there is one particular meaning to which we might restrict it, but by and large, this is something that we'll have to give up and we'll have to adopt the more complicated view of what well-being is. The second trap is a confusion between experience and memory; basically, it's between being happy in your life, and being happy about your life or happy with your life. And those are two very different concepts, and they're both lumped in the notion of happiness. And the third is the focusing illusion, and it's the unfortunate fact that we can't think about any circumstance that affects well-being without distorting its importance. I mean, this is a real cognitive trap. There's just no way of getting it right.

Now, I'd like to start with an example of somebody who had a question-and-answer session after one of my lectures reported a story, and that was a story -- He said he'd been listening to a symphony, and it was absolutely glorious music and at the very end of the recording, there was a dreadful screeching sound. And then he added, really quite emotionally, it ruined the whole experience. But it hadn't. What it had ruined were the memories of the experience. He had had the experience. He had had 20 minutes of glorious music. They counted for nothing because he was left with a memory; the memory was ruined, and the memory was all that he had gotten to keep.

What this is telling us, really, is that we might be thinking of ourselves and of other people in terms of two selves. There is an experiencing self, who lives in the present and knows the present, is capable of re-living the past, but basically it has only the present. It's the experiencing self that the doctor approaches -- you know, when the doctor asks, "Does it hurt now when I touch you here?" And then there is a remembering self, and the remembering self is the one that keeps score, and maintains the story of our life, and it's the one that the doctor approaches in asking the question, "How have you been feeling lately?" or "How was your trip to Albania?" or something like that. Those are two very different entities, the experiencing self and the remembering self, and getting confused between them is part of the mess about the notion of happiness.

Now, the remembering self is a storyteller. And that really starts with a basic response of our memories -- it starts immediately. We don't only tell stories when we set out to tell stories. Our memory tells us stories, that is, what we get to keep from our experiences is a story. And let me begin with one example. This is an old study. Those are actual patients undergoing a painful procedure. I won't go into detail. It's no longer painful these days, but it was painful when this study was run in the 1990s. They were asked to report on their pain every 60 seconds. Here are two patients, those are their recordings. And you are asked, "Who of them suffered more?" And it's a very easy question. Clearly, Patient B suffered more -- his colonoscopy was longer, and every minute of pain that Patient A had, Patient B had, and more.

But now there is another question: "How much did these patients think they suffered?" And here is a surprise. The surprise is that Patient A had a much worse memory of the colonoscopy than Patient B. The stories of the colonoscopies were different, and because a very critical part of the story is how it ends. And neither of these stories is very inspiring or great -- but one of them is this distinct ... (Laughter) but one of them is distinctly worse than the other. And the one that is worse is the one where pain was at its peak at the very end; it's a bad story. How do we know that? Because we asked these people after their colonoscopy, and much later, too, "How bad was the whole thing, in total?" And it was much worse for A than for B, in memory.

Now this is a direct conflict between the experiencing self and the remembering self. From the point of view of the experiencing self, clearly, B had a worse time. Now, what you could do with Patient A, and we actually ran clinical experiments, and it has been done, and it does work -- you could actually extend the colonoscopy of Patient A by just keeping the tube in without jiggling it too much. That will cause the patient to suffer, but just a little and much less than before. And if you do that for a couple of minutes, you have made the experiencing self of Patient A worse off, and you have the remembering self of Patient A a lot better off, because now you have endowed Patient A with a better story about his experience. What defines a story? And that is true of the stories that memory delivers for us, and it's also true of the stories that we make up. What defines a story are changes, significant moments and endings. Endings are very, very important and, in this case, the ending dominated.

Now, the experiencing self lives its life continuously. It has moments of experience,one after the other. And you can ask: What happens to these moments? And the answer is really straightforward: They are lost forever. I mean, most of the moments of our life -- and I calculated, you know, the psychological present is said to be about three seconds long; that means that, you know, in a life there are about 600 million of them; in a month, there are about 600,000 -- most of them don't leave a trace. Most of them are completely ignored by the remembering self. And yet, somehow you get the sense that they should count, that what happens during these moments of experience is our life. It's the finite resource that we're spending while we're on this earth. And how to spend it would seem to be relevant, but that is not the story that the remembering self keeps for us.

So we have the remembering self and the experiencing self, and they're really quite distinct. The biggest difference between them is in the handling of time. From the point of view of the experiencing self, if you have a vacation, and the second week is just as good as the first, then the two-week vacation is twice as good as the one-week vacation. That's not the way it works at all for the remembering self. For the remembering self, a two-week vacation is barely better than the one-week vacation because there are no new memories added. You have not changed the story. And in this way, time is actually the critical variable that distinguishes a remembering self from an experiencing self; time has very little impact on the story.

Now, the remembering self does more than remember and tell stories. It is actually the one that makes decisions because, if you have a patient who has had, say,two colonoscopies with two different surgeons and is deciding which of them to choose, then the one that chooses is the one that has the memory that is less bad, and that's the surgeon that will be chosen. The experiencing self has no voice in this choice. We actually don't choose between experiences, we choose between memories of experiences. And even when we think about the future, we don't think of our future normally as experiences. We think of our future as anticipated memories. And basically you can look at this, you know, as a tyranny of the remembering self, and you can think of the remembering self sort of dragging the experiencing self through experiences that the experiencing self doesn't need.

I have that sense that when we go on vacations this is very frequently the case; that is, we go on vacations, to a very large extent, in the service of our remembering self. And this is a bit hard to justify I think. I mean, how much do we consume our memories? That is one of the explanations that is given for the dominance of the remembering self. And when I think about that, I think about a vacation we had in Antarctica a few years ago, which was clearly the best vacation I've ever had, and I think of it relatively often, relative to how much I think of other vacations. And I probably have consumed my memories of that three-week trip, I would say, for about 25 minutes in the last four years. Now, if I had ever opened the folder with the 600 pictures in it, I would have spent another hour. Now, that is three weeks, and that is at most an hour and a half. There seems to be a discrepancy. Now, I may be a bit extreme, you know, in how little appetite I have for consuming memories, but even if you do more of this, there is a genuine question: Why do we put so much weight on memory relative to the weight that we put on experiences?

So I want you to think about a thought experiment. Imagine that for your next vacation, you know that at the end of the vacation all your pictures will be destroyed, and you'll get an amnesic drug so that you won't remember anything. Now, would you choose the same vacation? (Laughter) And if you would choose a different vacation, there is a conflict between your two selves, and you need to think about how to adjudicate that conflict, and it's actually not at all obvious, because if you think in terms of time, then you get one answer, and if you think in terms of memories, you might get another answer. Why do we pick the vacations we do is a problem that confronts us with a choice between the two selves.

Now, the two selves bring up two notions of happiness. There are really two concepts of happiness that we can apply,one per self. So you can ask: How happy is the experiencing self? And then you would ask: How happy are the moments in the experiencing self's life? And they're all -- happiness for moments is a fairly complicated process. What are the emotions that can be measured? And, by the way, now we are capable of getting a pretty good idea of the happiness of the experiencing self over time. If you ask for the happiness of the remembering self, it's a completely different thing. This is not about how happily a person lives. It is about how satisfied or pleased the person is when that person thinks about her life. Very different notion. Anyone who doesn't distinguish those notions is going to mess up the study of happiness, and I belong to a crowd of students of well-being, who've been messing up the study of happiness for a long time in precisely this way.

The distinction between the happiness of the experiencing self and the satisfaction of the remembering self has been recognized in recent years, and there are now efforts to measure the two separately. The Gallup Organization has a world poll where more than half a million people have been asked questions about what they think of their life and about their experiences, and there have been other efforts along those lines. So in recent years, we have begun to learn about the happiness of the two selves. And the main lesson I think that we have learned is they are really different. You can know how satisfied somebody is with their life, and that really doesn't teach you much about how happily they're living their life, and vice versa. Just to give you a sense of the correlation, the correlation is about .5. What that means is if you met somebody, and you were told, "Oh his father is six feet tall," how much would you know about his height? Well, you would know something about his height, but there's a lot of uncertainty. You have that much uncertainty. If I tell you that somebody ranked their life eight on a scale of ten, you have a lot of uncertainty about how happy they are with their experiencing self. So the correlation is low.

We know something about what controls satisfaction of the happiness self. We know that money is very important, goals are very important. We know that happiness is mainly being satisfied with people that we like, spending time with people that we like. There are other pleasures, but this is dominant. So if you want to maximize the happiness of the two selves, you are going to end up doing very different things. The bottom line of what I've said here is that we really should not think of happiness as a substitute for well-being. It is a completely different notion.

Now, very quickly, another reason we can not think straight about happiness is that we do not attend to the same things when we think about life, and we actually live. So, if you ask the simple question of how happy people are in California, you are not going to get to the correct answer. When you ask that question, you think people must be happier in California if, say, you live in Ohio. (Laughter) And what happens is when you think about living in California, you are thinking of the contrast between California and other places, and that contrast, say, is in climate. Well, it turns out that climate is not very important to the experiencing self and it's not even very important to the reflective self that decides how happy people are. But now, because the reflective self is in charge, you may end up -- some people may end up moving to California. And it's sort of interesting to trace what is going to happen to people who move to California in the hope of getting happier. Well, their experiencing self is not going to get happier. We know that. But one thing will happen: They will think they are happier, because, when they think about it, they'll be reminded of how horrible the weather was in Ohio, and they will feel they made the right decision.

It is very difficult to think straight about well-being, and I hope I have given you a sense of how difficult it is.

Thank you.


Chris Anderson: Thank you. I've got a question for you. Thank you so much. Now, when we were on the phone a few weeks ago, you mentioned to me that there was quite an interesting result came out of that Gallup survey. Is that something you can share since you do have a few moments left now?

Daniel Kahneman: Sure. I think the most interesting result that we found in the Gallup survey is a number, which we absolutely did not expect to find. We found that with respect to the happiness of the experiencing self. When we looked at how feelings, vary with income. And it turns out that, below an income of 60,000 dollars a year, for Americans -- and that's a very large sample of Americans, like 600,000, so it's a large representative sample -- below an income of 600,000 dollars a year ...

CA: 60,000.

DK: 60,000. (Laughter) 60,000 dollars a year, people are unhappy, and they get progressively unhappier the poorer they get. Above that, we get an absolutely flat line. I mean I've rarely seen lines so flat. Clearly, what is happening is money does not buy you experiential happiness, but lack of money certainly buys you misery, and we can measure that misery very, very clearly. In terms of the other self, the remembering self, you get a different story. The more money you earn, the more satisfied you are. That does not hold for emotions.

CA: But Danny, the whole American endeavor is about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. If people took seriously that finding, I mean, it seems to turn upside down everything we believe about, like for example, taxation policy and so forth. Is there any chance that politicians, that the country generally, would take a finding like that seriously and run public policy based on it?

DK: You know I think that there is recognition of the role of happiness research in public policy. The recognition is going to be slow in the United States, no question about that, but in the U.K., it is happening, and in other countries it is happening. People are recognizing that they ought to be thinking of happiness when they think of public policy. It's going to take a while, and people are going to debate whether they want to study experience happiness, or whether they want to study life evaluation, so we need to have that debate fairly soon. How to enhance happiness goes very different ways depending on how you think, and whether you think of the remembering self or you think of the experiencing self. This is going to influence policy, I think, in years to come. In the United States, efforts are being made to measure the experience happiness of the population. This is going to be, I think, within the next decade or two, part of national statistics.

CA: Well, it seems to me that this issue will -- or at least should be -- the most interesting policy discussion to track over the next few years. Thank you so much for inventing behavioral economics. Thank you, Danny Kahneman.

最近 幸福について話す人が多いですね 過去5年に出版され タイトルに“幸福”が 入っている本を ある人に数えてもらったところ あまりの量で 40冊ほどで諦めてしまいました 研究者たちの幸福に対する興味の高まりは かなりのものです 幸福のコーチングもたくさん行われ 皆に幸福になってもらいたいことがわかります しかし そのような努力があるにも関わらず 幸福について 明瞭に考えることを ほぼ不可能にしてしまう認知の罠が 幾つかあります

今日は この認知の罠を取り上げます これは自らの幸福を願う一般の人にも 幸福を追究する学者にも当てはまります なぜなら 誰もが混乱した状態にいるからです 罠の一つは 複雑さを認めることへの抵抗感にあります 幸福という言葉は もはや役立つ言葉ではない― という事が明らかになりました この言葉を様々な事に あてはめすぎるからです この言葉には 特定の意味合いがありますが 概して 狭い意味に 限定することは諦めて 幸福な状態とは何か もっと複雑な見方を しなくてはいけないのです 二つめの罠は 体験と記憶を混同してしまうことです 生活の中で見いだす幸福と 自分の人生の幸福度合い この違いです この二つは非常に異なる概念ですが どちらも幸福という一つの観念にまとめられがちです 三つめは錯覚に焦点を置くこと 幸福の状態を左右する状況を ゆがめて考えてしまうのは 残念なことです これは まさに認知の罠です 正確に理解する方法が無いのです

例を出してみましょう 私の講義の後に おこなった質疑応答で ある方がこんな話をしました 彼は交響曲を聴いていて その音楽に聞き惚れていたところ その曲の終わりに 耳をつんざく音が入っていました 彼はかなり感情的に 曲が台無しになった と言いました でも 台無しになったのは 曲ではなく その経験の記憶です 彼は素晴らしい曲を 20分聴いていたのに その価値がなくなったのは 台無しになった記憶が 残ったからです 彼に残ったのは記憶しかありません

この話から 我々が 自らを二つの自己として 考えているらしいとわかります 経験の自己― これは 現在を生き 現在を経験し 過去にも戻れる自己です でも基本的には現在しかありません 例えば 医師が “ここを触ったら痛みますか?” と 尋ねる相手は 経験の自己です そして 記憶の自己というのがあります 記憶の自己とは 記録を残し 人生の物語を紡ぎます 医師が尋ねる質問を 例に出すと “最近の調子はどうですか?” “旅行はいかがでしたか?” なんて質問です この二つは まったく異なるもので “経験の自己”と“記憶の自己”を 混同してしまうのは 幸福の観念に見られる 混乱なのです

記憶の自己は 語り手です 我々の記憶の基本的な反応で すぐに動き出します 話をするとき 我々が単純に語っているのではなく 記憶が物語るのです 要は経験から 引き継がれたものが 話になるのです その一例を挙げてみます 昔行われた研究で 大腸内視鏡検査を受けた実際の患者から得たデータです この検査は今となっては痛みを伴いませんが 研究が行われた90年代には痛みを伴う検査でした 患者は60秒ごとに 痛みの度合いを報告するように言われ これは二人の患者と 彼らの痛みを記録したものです この二人のうち より苦しんだのは どちらかと聞かれたら 明らかに それは患者Bですね 彼の検査時間のほうが長く 患者Aが毎分感じた痛み以上に 患者Bは痛みを感じました

さて 別の質問をします 患者自身に どれだけ苦しんだと思うかと尋ねると 驚くことに 患者Bよりも 患者Aのほうが より嫌な記憶として 覚えていたのです 二人の検査の話は異なっていました なぜなら その話の一番重要な部分は 検査の終わり方なのです どちらの話も 心を打たれるような内容ではありませんが 一方は もう片方よりも 明らかに悲惨なものなのです より嫌な記憶として語られた方は まさに終わるときに痛みがピークを迎えていました 本当に悲惨なものです 対象となった患者には 検査後と かなり時間が経ってから インタビューしました 検査全体の印象を評価してもらうと 患者Bよりも 患者Aが より大変だったと答えました

これは経験の自己と 記憶の自己の間で起こる はっきりとした矛盾です 経験の自己の視点で見ると 患者Bのほうが大変だったのは明らかです 患者Aにどうすべきだったか 実際に行った臨床実験で 効果が確かめられているのですが 患者Aのチューブをそれほど動かさず 大腸内視鏡検査を長引かせます そうすることで患者は痛みを感じますが その痛みは ほんの少しで それまでに比べて 痛みは激減します これを数分やれば 患者Aの経験の自己には つらい思いをさせますが 記憶の自己には ずっとましな処置です なぜなら 患者Aに与えた 経験の物語は ましなものになっているからです 物語を形作るのは何でしょう これは記憶を通して 我々が思い出す話や 我々が作り上げる話にも共通したことです 話を明確にするものは 変化であり 決定的な瞬間であり 結末なのです 結末は非常に重要な役割を果たしていて この患者のケースでは検査の締めくくりが左右したのです

さて 経験の自己の 人生には切れ目もなく どんな瞬間でも 次から次へと経験をしています “この瞬間”の行方を問うと 答えは非常に簡単で 永久に失われます 人生における時間の大半です 心理的現在は 約3秒だと 言われており その3秒は 人生で約6億回 月に約60万回もある計算になりますが ほとんどが形跡を残しません ほとんどが記憶の自己に 無視されてしまいます それでもどういうわけか 今この瞬間には価値があり そこで起きている事こそが 人生であると感じるのです 我々が生きる間に体験できる― 限られたものであり 人生をいかに過ごすかということが 価値を持つように感じますが これは記憶の自己が 残す話とは違うのです

記憶の自己と 経験の自己とは まったく別物なのです 一番の違いは 時間の扱い方です 経験の自己の視点で見てみましょう 休暇に出かけるとします 1週目も2週目も 同じくらい楽しければ 2週間の休暇の充足感は 1週間の休暇の2倍です 記憶の自己はこのようには働きません 2週間の休暇は 1週間の休暇と さほど変わらないのです なぜなら新しく加わる記憶はなく 話自体を変化させる事がないからです このように 時間は記憶の自己と 経験の自己を区別する― 重要なポイントです この休暇の例に 時間はあまり影響力はありません

記憶の自己は 話を記憶し 語ること以上の 働きがあります 実際に 決断をするのは記憶の自己です 例えば 大腸内視鏡検査を2回 二人の医師から受けた患者に どちらかの医師を選んでもらうとすると その患者は 記憶の中で ましだった方の 医師を選びます この選択をする際 経験の自己は関わっていません 通常 我々は経験から選ぶ事はせず 記憶から選び出します 未来のことを考える時でさえ 経験として考える事は 普通ありません 先を見越した記憶として 未来を見ています これは記憶の自己による 専制政治と考えてください 記憶の自己が決めて 経験の自己に対して 望んでいたわけでもない事も 経験させるのです

私が感じるのは 我々が休暇に出かけるのは ―大半のケースに言えますが― 休暇とは 記憶の自己のために 行くものだという気がします これを正当化するのは少し難しいのですが 我々は記憶をどれだけ思い返すでしょうか? これは 記憶の自己が 支配している― 説明の一つです この事を考える時 数年前の南極旅行を思い出します それは今までで最高と言える旅行で その他の旅行に比べて 思い出す回数も多いのです その3週間の旅行を 過去4年のうちに思い出したのは 25分程度でしょう もしも 600枚の写真を 見返したとしたら 1時間追加されるくらいです 3週間の旅行に対し せいぜい1時間半の記憶なので 何となく不釣り合いです 私は平均的な人ほど 記憶を思い返すことをしないのかもしれませんが もっと頻繁に記憶にアクセスしたとしても 真の疑問が残ります なぜ経験と比べて 記憶に重きを置くのでしょうか?

ここで ある思考実験をしてみましょう 皆さんの次の休暇で 休暇の最後になって 全ての写真が削除されるとします 皆さんは記憶喪失の薬を飲まされ 旅行の記憶はゼロになります それでも その休暇を選ぶでしょうか? (笑) もし別の休暇にするならば 二つの自己が対立しているので その対立をどのように解決するか考える必要がありますが 実際のところ わかりづらいんです 時間を優先すれば ある答えが出てくるでしょうし 記憶を優先すれば 別の答えが出てくるかもしれません なぜ その休暇を選んでいるかという― 二つの自己の間にある選択肢は 我々が直面する問題です

二つの自己は 二つの 幸福の観念をもたらします 二つの自己に対して適用できる― 幸福の観念がひとつずつあるのです そこで出てくる質問は “経験の自己はどれだけ幸せなのか?” そして “経験の自己の人生において どれだけ幸せを感じているのか?” 幸福に感じる瞬間とは 非常に複雑なプロセスです 測定できる感情とは何でしょうか? 経験の自己が感じる幸福と 時間の関係性は わかっていただけたと思います もし 記憶の自己の幸福を尋ねるとしたら それはまた別物です これは ある人がどれだけ幸せに暮らしているか ということではなく その人が自分の人生を考えたときに どれだけ満足しているか ということです かなり違う観念ですね この観念の違いがわからなければ 幸福の研究はうまくいきません 私は まさにこんな感じに 長い間 幸福の研究がうまくいかずにいる― 学者の1人です

経験の自己の幸福と 記憶の自己の満足感が 違うという事実は 近年 気づかれるようになってきました 現在では 二つを隔てて測る努力もされています ギャラップは 50万人を対象に 世界中で世論調査を行い 自分の人生と経験を どう思っているか アンケートを行いました そして それに沿った形で 他の調査も進んできました 近年では 二つの自己に絡んだ幸福に関して 解明し始めたところです 我々が学んだ主なことは 二つがまったく別物だということです ある人の人生の満足度を測る事はできても そこから その人が どれだけ人生を幸せに過ごしているかはわかりません 反対のことも言えます その相関性を示してみます 相関性は約0.5です 例えば 父の身長が180cmだと ある人が言ったとしても 彼自身の身長に関しては何もわかりませんね 多少の目安にはなりますが はっきりしたことはわかりません それくらい不確かだと思ってください ある人が 自分の人生は10点満点中8点だと言ったとしても どれだけ経験の自己が 幸せなのか 推しはかることはできません ですから相関関係は低いのです

幸福に対する満足度を支配する要素は わかっています お金は大切ですし 目標も大切 幸福とは主に 好きな人と共に 満足することであり 好きな人と時間を過ごすことです 他にも考えられますが これが支配的です ですから 二つの自己の幸福度を強めたい場合は まったく異なる事柄を する事になるでしょう 要は 幸福は心身ともに健全でいることと 同じ事だと考えるべきではないのです 二つはまったく違った観念です

ここで手短に説明しますが 幸福を考える時 これほど複雑化する もう1つの理由は 人生に関して考えるときと 実際に生きている日々とでは 我々は同じことに注目していないということです ですから カリフォルニアの人たちに幸せの度合いを尋ねても 正しい答えは得られません その質問を他の人にすると カリフォルニアのほうが幸せなはずだと思うのです 例えばオハイオの人なんかね (笑) ここで起きるのは カリフォルニアで暮らす事を考える時 カリフォルニアと別の場所を 対比させて考える ということです 例えば 気候の違いです 実は 気候というのは 経験の自己には重要ではなく 人がどれだけ幸せなのかを決める― 記憶の自己にも それほど重要ではありません しかし 記憶の自己がつかさどっているので 中には カリフォルニアへ 引っ越す人が出るのです 幸せになるだろうと期待してカリフォルニアへ 移り住む人たちに何が起こるのか 追跡するのは興味深いんです 経験の自己が 一層幸せになる事はありません 本当です でも確実に言えるのは 彼らがもっと幸せだと思うようになる事です なぜなら 彼らはオハイオの天気が どれだけ悪かったか思い出し 正しい決断をしたと感じるからです

心身ともに健全でいることを 事実どおりに考えるのは非常に難しいのです どれだけ難しいことなのか わかってもらえたでしょうか



ありがとう 質問があります どうもありがとう 数週間前に電話でお話しした時 世論調査で浮かび上がった非常に興味深い 結果を教えてくれましたね 時間があるので お話してくれませんか

もちろんです 世論調査で明らかになった最も興味深いことは 予想もしていなかった数値が浮かび上がったことです 経験の自己から見る幸福に関し 分かったのは 我々の感情は 収入と密接に 関わっていることです ここで明らかになったのは アメリカ人にとって 年収6万ドル以下は 60万人から聞き出した調査なので 典型的なサンプルですが 年収60万ドル以下だと…


そうそう 6万ドル (笑) 年収6万ドル以下だと 惨めさを感じ 金額が下がるほど その度合いは増します 6万ドル以上の場合は変化はありません そこまで平らな線が出るのも珍しいのです 明らかに ここで言える事は 経験的な幸福をお金で買うことはできませんが お金がないのと 惨めな思いをするということです その惨めさをはっきりと 測ることもできます 記憶の自己からみると 違う内容になります お金を儲けるほど 満足感は増す これに感情は関与しません

でもアメリカ人が頑張るのも 生活 自由 幸福の追求のためですよね? もし 皆がその調査結果を真剣に受け止めたら 私たちが信じる全てを 180度転換するような感じがします 例えば 税制に関してとか… 政治家が この調査結果を真剣に受け止めて この基盤に基づいて公共政策を動かす事は 今後あるでしょうか?

公共政策の中で 幸福の研究も 位置づけられていると思います アメリカでの認知度向上には 間違いなく 時間がかかるでしょう イギリスや他国では 認知度が高まっていて 公共政策を考える際 幸福を視野に入れる必要性が 考慮されています 時間はかかりますし 幸福の経験の研究や 生活の評価の研究に関して 議論がなされるでしょう その議論も近々必要ですね 幸福の高め方は その人の考え方によって異なりますし 記憶の自己や経験の自己のどちらを 考えるかによっても異なります これは今後 政策に影響するでしょう アメリカでは 全国民の経験的な幸福を 測る努力がされています 今後10~20年以内に これは国家統計の 一部になると思います

この問題は 今後数年の間 一番興味深い政策論議に なりそうですね 行動経済学を生み出してくれて ありがとう どうもありがとう

― もっと見る ―
― 折りたたむ ―


  • 主語
  • 動詞
  • 助動詞
  • 準動詞
  • 関係詞等

TED 日本語

TED Talks


洋楽 おすすめ