【TED演講】你真的知道你為什么要做的事情嗎？
你真的知道你為什么要做的事情嗎？
Do you really know why you do what you do?
演講者：Petter Johansson
So why do you think the rich should pay more in taxes??Why did you buy the latest iPhone??Why did you pick your current partner??And why did so many people vote for Donald Trump??What were the reasons, why did they do it?
那你為什么這么認為 富人應(yīng)該多交稅嗎？?你為什么買最新的iPhone？?你為什么選擇你現(xiàn)在的伴侶？?為什么這么多人 投票給唐納德·特朗普？?原因是什么，他們?yōu)槭裁匆@樣做？
?
So we ask this kind of question all the time,?and we expect to get an answer.?And when being asked, we expect ourselves to know the answer,?to simply tell why we did as we did.?But do we really know why??So when you say that you prefer George Clooney to Tom Hanks,?due to his concern for the environment,?is that really true??So you can be perfectly sincere and genuinely believe?that this is the reason that drives your choice,?but to me, it may still feel like something is missing.?As it stands, due to the nature of subjectivity,?it is actually very hard to ever prove that people are wrong about themselves.
所以我們問這種 問題一直存在，我們希望得到答案。?當(dāng)被問到時， 我們希望自己知道答案，簡單地告訴我們?yōu)槭裁催@樣做。?但我們真的知道為什么嗎？?所以當(dāng)你說你更喜歡 喬治克魯尼到湯姆漢克斯，由于他對環(huán)境的關(guān)注，這是真的嗎？?所以你可以完全真誠 并真誠地相信這就是原因 這推動了你的選擇，但對我來說，它可能仍然感覺 好像少了點什么。?就目前而言，由于 主觀性的本質(zhì)，其實很難證明 人們錯了自己。
?
So I'm an experimental psychologist,?and this is the problem we've been trying to solve in our lab.?So we wanted to create an experiment?that would allow us to challenge what people say about themselves,?regardless of how certain they may seem.?But tricking people about their own mind is hard.?So we turned to the professionals.?The magicians.?So they're experts at creating the illusion of a free choice.?So when they say, "Pick a card, any card,"?the only thing you know is that your choice is no longer free.?So we had a few fantastic brainstorming sessions?with a group of Swedish magicians,?and they helped us create a method?in which we would be able to manipulate the outcome of people's choices.?This way we would know when people are wrong about themselves,?even if they don't know this themselves.?So I will now show you a short movie showing this manipulation.?So it's quite simple.?The participants make a choice,?but I end up giving them the opposite.?And then we want to see: How did they react, and what did they say??So it's quite simple, but see if you can spot the magic going on.?And this was shot with real participants, they don't know what's going on.
所以我是一個實驗心理學(xué)家，這就是問題所在 我們一直在實驗室中嘗試解決。?所以我們想創(chuàng)建一個實驗，讓我們能夠挑戰(zhàn)。 人們對自己的評價，無論他們看起來多么確定。?但是欺騙別人 關(guān)于自己的思想很難。?所以我們求助于專業(yè)人士。?魔術(shù)師。?所以他們是創(chuàng)造的專家 自由選擇的幻覺。?所以當(dāng)他們說，“選擇一張卡，任何一張卡”時，你唯一知道的就是。 是你的選擇不再自由。?所以我們有一些很棒的?與一群瑞典魔術(shù)師進行頭腦風(fēng)暴會議，他們幫助我們創(chuàng)造了一種能夠操縱的方法 人們選擇的結(jié)果。?這樣我們就會知道 當(dāng)人們對自己有錯時，即使他們自己也不知道這一點。?所以我現(xiàn)在告訴你 一部展示這種操縱的短片。?所以這很簡單。?參與者做出了選擇，但我最終給了他們相反的結(jié)果。?然后我們想看看： 他們有什么反應(yīng)，他們說了什么？?所以這很簡單，但是看 如果你能發(fā)現(xiàn)魔術(shù)正在發(fā)生。?這是與真實的參與者一起拍攝的， 他們不知道發(fā)生了什么。
?
(Video) Petter Johansson: Hi, my name's Petter.
（視頻）彼得·約翰遜： 嗨，我叫彼得。
?
Woman: Hi, I'm Becka.
女人：嗨，我是貝卡。
?
PJ: I'm going to show you pictures like this.?And you'll have to decide which one you find more attractive.
PJ：我要給你看 像這樣的圖片。?你必須決定 你覺得哪一個更有吸引力。
?
Becka: OK.
貝卡：好的。
?
PJ: And then sometimes, I will ask you why you prefer that face.
PJ：有時候， 我會問你為什么喜歡那張臉。
?
Becka: OK.
貝卡：好的。
?
PJ: Ready? Becka: Yeah.
PJ：準備好了嗎？ 貝卡：是的。
?
PJ: Why did you prefer that one?
PJ：你為什么喜歡那個？
?
Becka: The smile, I think.
貝卡：我想是微笑。
?
PJ: Smile.
PJ：微笑。
?
Man: One on the left.?Again, this one just struck me.?Interesting shot.?Since I'm a photographer, I like the way it's lit and looks.
男子：左邊一個。?再一次，這個剛剛打動了我。?有趣的鏡頭。?因為我是攝影師， 我喜歡它的照明和外觀。
?
Petter Johansson: But now comes the trick.
彼得·約翰遜：但現(xiàn)在訣竅來了。
?
(Video) Woman 1: This one.
（視頻）女人1：這個。
?
PJ: So they get the opposite of their choice.?And let's see what happens.
PJ：所以他們得到了相反的結(jié)果 他們的選擇。?讓我們看看會發(fā)生什么。
?
Woman 2: Um ...?I think he seems a little more innocent than the other guy.
女人2：嗯...?我覺得他似乎多了一點 比另一個人無辜。
?
Man: The one on the left.?I like her smile and contour of the nose and face.?So it's a little more interesting to me, and her haircut.
男子：左邊的那個。?我喜歡她的笑容 以及鼻子和臉部的輪廓。?所以更有趣一點 對我來說，還有她的發(fā)型。
?
Woman 3: This one.?I like the smirky look better.
女人3：這個。?我更喜歡傻笑的樣子。
?
PJ: You like the smirky look better?
PJ：你更喜歡傻笑的樣子嗎？
?
Woman 3: This one.
PJ：你更喜歡傻笑的樣子嗎？
?
PJ: What made you choose him?
PJ：是什么讓你選擇了他？
?
Woman 3: I don't know, he looks a little bit like the Hobbit.
女人3：我不知道， 他看起來有點像霍比特人。
?
PJ: And what happens in the end?when I tell them the true nature of the experiment??Yeah, that's it. I just have to ask a few questions.
PJ：當(dāng)我告訴他們真實的本質(zhì)時，最后會發(fā)生什么 的實驗？?是的，就是這樣。我只需要 問幾個問題。
?
Man: Sure.
男子：當(dāng)然。
?
PJ: What did you think of this experiment, was it easy or hard?
PJ：你怎么看的 這個實驗，是容易還是難？
?
Man: It was easy.
男子：很容易。
?
PJ: During the experiments,?I actually switched the pictures three times.?Was this anything you noticed?
PJ：在實驗過程中，我實際上切換了 圖片三遍。?你注意到了嗎？
?
Man: No. I didn't notice any of that.
男子：沒有。我什么都沒注意到。
?
PJ: Not at all? Man: No.?Switching the pictures as far as ...
男子：沒有。我什么都沒注意到。
?
PJ: Yeah, you were pointing at one of them but I actually gave you the opposite.
男子：沒有。我什么都沒注意到。
?
Man: The opposite one. OK, when you --?No. Shows you how much my attention span was.
男子：正好相反。 好的，當(dāng)你 --?不。顯示多少 我的注意力跨度是。
?
PJ: Did you notice that sometimes during the experiment?I switched the pictures?
PJ：你有沒有注意到有時 在實驗過程中我切換了圖片？
?
Woman 2: No, I did not notice that.
PJ：你有沒有注意到有時 在實驗過程中我切換了圖片？
?
PJ: You were pointing at one, but then I gave you the other one.?No inclination of that happening?
PJ：你指著一個， 但后來我給了你另一個。?沒有這種傾向嗎？
?
Woman 2: No.
女人2：沒有。
?
Woman 2: I did not notice.
女人2：我沒有注意到。
?
PJ: Thank you.
潘：謝謝。
?
Woman 2: Thank you.
女人2：謝謝。
?
PJ: OK, so as you probably figured out now,?the trick is that I have two cards in each hand,?and when I hand one of them over,?the black one kind of disappears into the black surface on the table.?So using pictures like this,?normally not more than 20 percent of the participants detect these tries.?And as you saw in the movie,?when in the end we explain what's going on,?they're very surprised and often refuse to believe the trick has been made.?So this shows that this effect is quite robust and a genuine effect.?But if you're interested in self-knowledge, as I am,?the more interesting bit is,?OK, so what did they say when they explained these choices?
PJ：好的，所以你可能 現(xiàn)在想通了，訣竅是我有 每手兩張牌，當(dāng)我把其中一張遞過去時，黑色的一張就消失了 進入桌子上的黑色表面。?所以使用這樣的圖片，通常不超過20% 的參與者檢測到這些嘗試。?正如你在電影中看到的那樣，當(dāng)最后 我們解釋發(fā)生了什么，他們非常驚訝，經(jīng)常拒絕 相信伎倆已經(jīng)做好了。?所以這說明這種效果 非常健壯，效果真實。?但如果你有興趣 在自我認識中，就像我一樣，更有趣的是，好吧，那么他們說了什么 當(dāng)他們解釋這些選擇時？
?
So we've done a lot of analysis?of the verbal reports in these experiments.?And this graph simply shows?that if you compare what they say in a manipulated trial?with a nonmanipulated trial,?that is when they explain a normal choice they've made?and one where we manipulated the outcome,?we find that they are remarkably similar.?So they are just as emotional, just as specific,?and they are expressed with the same level of certainty.
所以我們對口頭報告做了很多分析。?在這些實驗中。?這張圖只是表明，如果你比較 他們在操縱審判和非操縱審判中所說的話，那就是當(dāng)他們解釋的時候 他們做出的正常選擇和我們操縱結(jié)果的選擇，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)它們非常相似。?所以他們同樣情緒化， 同樣具體，它們被表達出來 具有相同的確定性。
?
So the strong conclusion to draw from this?is that if there are no differences?between a real choice and a manipulated choice,?perhaps we make things up all the time.
因此，從中得出的有力結(jié)論是，如果真正的選擇之間沒有區(qū)別 還有一個縱的選擇，也許我們一直在編造事情。
?
But we've also done studies?where we try to match what they say with the actual faces.?And then we find things like this.?So here, this male participant, he preferred the girl to the left,?he ended up with the one to the right.?And then, he explained his choice like this.?"She is radiant.?I would rather have approached her at the bar than the other one.?And I like earrings."?And whatever made him choose the girl on the left to begin with,?it can't have been the earrings,?because they were actually sitting on the girl on the right.?So this is a clear example of a post hoc construction.?So they just explained the choice afterwards.
但我們也做過研究，試圖與他們所說的相匹配。 與實際的面孔。?然后我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣的事情。?所以在這里，這個男性參與者， 他更喜歡左邊的女孩，他最終選擇了右邊的那個。?然后，他解釋說 他的選擇是這樣的。?“她容光煥發(fā)。?我寧愿接近她 在酒吧比另一個。?我喜歡耳環(huán)。?無論什么讓他選擇 左邊的女孩，不可能是耳環(huán)，因為它們實際上是 坐在右邊的女孩身上。?所以這是一個明顯的例子 事后建設(shè)。?所以他們只是解釋了 之后的選擇。
?
So what this experiment shows is,?OK, so if we fail to detect that our choices have been changed,?we will immediately start to explain them in another way.?And what we also found?is that the participants often come to prefer the alternative,?that they were led to believe they liked.?So if we let them do the choice again,?they will now choose the face they had previously rejected.?So this is the effect we call "choice blindness."?And we've done a number of different studies --?we've tried consumer choices,?choices based on taste and smell and even reasoning problems.
所以這個實驗表明，好吧，如果我們沒有檢測到 我們的選擇已經(jīng)改變，我們將立即開始 用另一種方式解釋它們。?我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，參與者 經(jīng)常開始選擇另一種選擇，他們被引導(dǎo)相信他們喜歡。?因此，如果我們讓他們再次選擇，他們現(xiàn)在將選擇臉 他們以前拒絕了。?所以這就是效果 我們稱之為“選擇盲目”。?我們已經(jīng)做到了 許多不同的研究 -?我們嘗試了消費者的選擇，基于味覺和嗅覺的選擇 甚至推理問題。
?
But what you all want to know is of course?does this extend also to more complex, more meaningful choices??Like those concerning moral and political issues.
所以這個實驗表明，好吧，如果我們沒有檢測到 我們的選擇已經(jīng)改變，我們將立即開始 用另一種方式解釋它們。?我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，參與者 經(jīng)常開始選擇另一種選擇，他們被引導(dǎo)相信他們喜歡。?因此，如果我們讓他們再次選擇，他們現(xiàn)在將選擇臉 他們以前拒絕了。?所以這就是效果 我們稱之為“選擇盲目”。?我們已經(jīng)做到了 許多不同的研究 -?我們嘗試了消費者的選擇，基于味覺和嗅覺的選擇 甚至推理問題。
?
So the next experiment, it needs a little bit of a background.?So in Sweden, the political landscape?is dominated by a left-wing and a right-wing coalition.?And the voters may move a little bit between the parties within each coalition,?but there is very little movement between the coalitions.?And before each elections,?the newspapers and the polling institutes?put together what they call "an election compass"?which consists of a number of dividing issues?that sort of separates the two coalitions.?Things like if tax on gasoline should be increased?or if the 13 months of paid parental leave?should be split equally between the two parents?in order to increase gender equality.
所以這個實驗表明，好吧，如果我們沒有檢測到 我們的選擇已經(jīng)改變，我們將立即開始 用另一種方式解釋它們。?我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，參與者 經(jīng)常開始選擇另一種選擇，他們被引導(dǎo)相信他們喜歡。?因此，如果我們讓他們再次選擇，他們現(xiàn)在將選擇臉 他們以前拒絕了。?所以這就是效果 我們稱之為“選擇盲目”。?我們已經(jīng)做到了 許多不同的研究 -?我們嘗試了消費者的選擇，基于味覺和嗅覺的選擇 甚至推理問題。
?
So, before the last Swedish election,?we created an election compass of our own.?So we walked up to people in the street?and asked if they wanted to do a quick political survey.?So first we had them state their voting intention?between the two coalitions.?Then we asked them to answer 12 of these questions.?They would fill in their answers,?and we would ask them to discuss,?so OK, why do you think tax on gas should be increased??And we'd go through the questions.?Then we had a color coded template?that would allow us to tally their overall score.?So this person would have one, two, three, four?five, six, seven, eight, nine scores to the left,?so he would lean to the left, basically.?And in the end, we also had them fill in their voting intention once more.
所以這個實驗表明，好吧，如果我們沒有檢測到 我們的選擇已經(jīng)改變，我們將立即開始 用另一種方式解釋它們。?我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)，參與者 經(jīng)常開始選擇另一種選擇，他們被引導(dǎo)相信他們喜歡。?因此，如果我們讓他們再次選擇，他們現(xiàn)在將選擇臉 他們以前拒絕了。?所以這就是效果 我們稱之為“選擇盲目”。?我們已經(jīng)做到了 許多不同的研究 -?我們嘗試了消費者的選擇，基于味覺和嗅覺的選擇 甚至推理問題。
?
But of course, there was also a trick involved.?So first, we walked up to people,?we asked them about their voting intention?and then when they started filling in,?we would fill in a set of answers going in the opposite direction.?We would put it under the notepad.?And when we get the questionnaire,?we would simply glue it on top of the participant's own answer.?So there, it's gone.?And then we would ask about each of the questions:?How did you reason here??And they'll state the reasons,?together we will sum up their overall score.?And in the end, they will state their voting intention again.
但是，當(dāng)然，有 也牽扯到一個把戲。?所以首先，我們走到人們面前，我們問他們 關(guān)于他們的投票意向，然后當(dāng)他們開始填寫時，我們會填寫一組答案 走向相反的方向。?我們會把它放在記事本下面。?當(dāng)我們收到問卷時，我們只需將其粘在上面即可 參與者自己的答案。?所以在那里，它消失了。?然后我們會問 關(guān)于每個問題：你是如何在這里推理的？?他們會陳述原因，我們將一起總結(jié) 他們的總分。?最后，他們會聲明 他們的投票意向再次出現(xiàn)。
?
So what we find first of all here,?is that very few of these manipulations are detected.?And they're not detected in the sense that they realize,?"OK, you must have changed my answer,"?it was more the case that,?"OK, I must've misunderstood the question the first time I read it.?Can I please change it?"?And even if a few of these manipulations were changed,?the overall majority was missed.?So we managed to switch 90 percent of the participants' answers?from left to right, right to left, their overall profile.
但是，當(dāng)然，有 也牽扯到一個把戲。?所以首先，我們走到人們面前，我們問他們 關(guān)于他們的投票意向，然后當(dāng)他們開始填寫時，我們會填寫一組答案 走向相反的方向。?我們會把它放在記事本下面。?當(dāng)我們收到問卷時，我們只需將其粘在上面即可 參與者自己的答案。?所以在那里，它消失了。?然后我們會問 關(guān)于每個問題：你是如何在這里推理的？?他們會陳述原因，我們將一起總結(jié) 他們的總分。?最后，他們會聲明 他們的投票意向再次出現(xiàn)。
?
And what happens then when they are asked to motivate their choices??And here we find much more interesting verbal reports?than compared to the faces.?People say things like this, and I'll read it to you.?So, "Large-scale governmental surveillance of email and internet traffic?ought to be permissible as means to combat international crime and terrorism."?"So you agree to some extent with this statement." "Yes."?"So how did you reason here?"?"Well, like, as it is so hard to get at international crime and terrorism,?I think there should be those kinds of tools."?And then the person remembers an argument from the newspaper in the morning.?"Like in the newspaper today,?it said they can like, listen to mobile phones from prison,?if a gang leader tries to continue his crimes from inside.?And I think it's madness that we have so little power?that we can't stop those things?when we actually have the possibility to do so."?And then there's a little bit back and forth in the end:?"I don't like that they have access to everything I do,?but I still think it's worth it in the long run."?So, if you didn't know that this person?just took part in a choice blindness experiment,?I don't think you would question?that this is the true attitude of that person.
然后當(dāng) 他們被要求激勵他們的選擇？?在這里，我們找到了更多 有趣的口頭報告比與面孔相比。?人們說這樣的話， 我會讀給你聽的。?所以，“大規(guī)模的政府監(jiān)控 的電子郵件和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)流量應(yīng)該被允許作為打擊的手段 國際犯罪和恐怖主義。?“所以你在某種程度上同意 用這句話?！笆?。”?“那你是怎么在這里推理的？”?“嗯，就像，因為它很難得到 在國際犯罪和恐怖主義方面，我認為應(yīng)該有 諸如此類的工具。?然后這個人記得一個爭論 早上從報紙上。?“就像今天的報紙一樣，它說他們可以喜歡， 聽監(jiān)獄里的手機，如果幫派頭目試圖繼續(xù) 他從內(nèi)部犯下的罪行。?我認為這是瘋狂的 我們的力量太小了，以至于當(dāng)我們真正擁有這些事情時，我們無法阻止這些事情。?這樣做的可能性。?然后有一點點 最后來回：“我不喜歡他們有訪問權(quán)限 對我所做的一切，但我仍然認為 從長遠來看，這是值得的。?所以，如果你不知道這個人剛剛參加了 一個選擇盲目的實驗，我想你不會質(zhì)疑這是真實的態(tài)度 那個人。
?
And what happens in the end, with the voting intention??What we find -- that one is also clearly affected by the questionnaire.?So we have 10 participants?shifting from left to right or from right to left.?We have another 19 that go from clear voting intention?to being uncertain.?Some go from being uncertain to clear voting intention.?And then there is a number of participants staying uncertain throughout.?And that number is interesting?because if you look at what the polling institutes say?the closer you get to an election,?the only people that are sort of in play?are the ones that are considered uncertain.?But we show there is a much larger number?that would actually consider shifting their attitudes.
最后會發(fā)生什么， 有投票意向？?我們發(fā)現(xiàn) - 那個也是 明顯受到問卷的影響。?所以我們有10個參與者從左到右移動 或從右到左。?我們還有另外 19 個 從明確的投票意圖到不確定。?有些從不確定 明確投票意向。?然后有很多參與者 自始至終都保持不確定。?這個數(shù)字很有趣，因為如果你看 民意調(diào)查機構(gòu)說，你越接近選舉，唯一在起作用的人就是那些 被認為是不確定的。?但是我們表明，實際上會考慮的要多得多。 改變他們的態(tài)度。
?
And here I must point out, of course, that you are not allowed to use this?as an actual method to change people's votes?before an election,?and we clearly debriefed them afterwards?and gave them every opportunity to change back?to whatever they thought first.?But what this shows is that if you can get people?to see the opposite view and engage in a conversation with themselves,?that could actually make them change their views.?OK.
當(dāng)然，在這里我必須指出， 不允許將其用作實際方法 在選舉前改變?nèi)藗兊倪x票，我們在事后清楚地向他們匯報并給了他們每一個 有機會變回他們首先想到的任何東西。?但這顯示的是 如果你能讓人們看到相反的觀點并參與其中 在與自己的對話中，這實際上可以使他們 改變他們的觀點。?還行。
?
So what does it all mean??What do I think is going on here??So first of all,?a lot of what we call self-knowledge is actually self-interpretation.?So I see myself make a choice,?and then when I'm asked why,?I just try to make as much sense of it as possible?when I make an explanation.?But we do this so quickly and with such ease?that we think we actually know the answer when we answer why.?And as it is an interpretation,?of course we sometimes make mistakes.?The same way we make mistakes when we try to understand other people.?So beware when you ask people the question "why"?because what may happen is that, if you asked them,?"So why do you support this issue?"?"Why do you stay in this job or this relationship?" --?what may happen when you ask why is that you actually create an attitude?that wasn't there before you asked the question.
那么這一切意味著什么呢？?我認為這是怎么回事？?所以首先，很多我們稱之為自我認識的東西。 其實是自我解讀。?所以我看到自己做出選擇，然后當(dāng)我被問到為什么時，我只是試著做出?當(dāng)我做出解釋時，盡可能多地理解它。?但我們做得如此之快 如此輕松，以至于我們認為我們實際上知道答案 當(dāng)我們回答為什么時。?由于這是一種解釋，我們當(dāng)然有時會犯錯誤。?我們犯錯誤的方式相同 當(dāng)我們試圖理解別人時。?所以當(dāng)你問別人時要小心 問題“為什么”，因為可能會發(fā)生什么 如果你問他們，“那你為什么支持這個問題？?“你為什么留在這份工作上 或者這種關(guān)系？“——當(dāng)你問為什么時會發(fā)生什么？ 是你實際上創(chuàng)造了一種不存在的態(tài)度 在你問這個問題之前。
?
And this is of course important in your professional life, as well,?or it could be.?If, say, you design something and then you ask people,?"Why do you think this is good or bad?"?Or if you're a journalist asking a politician,?"So, why did you make this decision?"?Or if indeed you are a politician?and try to explain why a certain decision was made.
這當(dāng)然很重要 在你的職業(yè)生涯中也是如此，或者可能是。?如果，比如說，你設(shè)計了一些東西 然后你問人們，“你為什么認為這是好是壞？?或者如果你是一名記者 問一位政治家：“那么，你為什么做出這個決定？?或者，如果您確實是政治家并嘗試解釋 為什么做出某個決定。
?
So this may all seem a bit disturbing.?But if you want to look at it from a positive direction,?it could be seen as showing,?OK, so we're actually a little bit more flexible than we think.?We can change our minds.?Our attitudes are not set in stone.?And we can also change the minds of others,?if we can only get them to engage with the issue?and see it from the opposite view.?And in my own personal life, since starting with this research --?So my partner and I, we've always had the rule?that you're allowed to take things back.?Just because I said I liked something a year ago,?doesn't mean I have to like it still.?And getting rid of the need to stay consistent?is actually a huge relief and makes relational life so mush easier to live.
所以這一切似乎有點令人不安。?但如果你想看看它 從積極的方向來看，它可以被視為顯示，好吧，所以我們實際上是 比我們想象的要靈活一些。?我們可以改變主意。?我們的態(tài)度不是一成不變的。?我們也可以改變 別人的思想，如果我們能得到他們 參與問題并從相反的角度看待它。?在我自己的個人生活中， 自從開始這項研究以來——?所以我和我的搭檔， 我們一直有一條規(guī)則，你可以收回東西。?就因為我說 一年前我喜歡的東西，并不意味著我仍然喜歡它。?并擺脫需求 保持一致實際上是一種巨大的解脫，并使 關(guān)系生活如此糊涂更容易過。
?
Anyway, so the conclusion must be:?know that you don't know yourself.?Or at least not as well as you think you do.
無論如何，所以結(jié)論必須是：知道你不了解自己。?或者至少沒有那么好 正如你認為的那樣。
?
Thanks.
謝謝。
