为什么我们喜欢真迹不喜欢仿画？心理学家保罗·布鲁姆相信人类是本质主义者，我们对一件事物历史渊源的认知会改变我们对这个事物的感受， 并不是一种简单的错觉，而是快乐和痛苦的一个深层特点。
TED视频https://v.qq.com/txp/iframe/player.html?width=500&height=375&auto=0&vid=w0104xbtq3r
TED演讲稿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.
我今天来说说日常快乐。但是我们的故事会从一个不同寻常的可怕的人讲起。他是赫曼·戈林(Hermann Goering) 戈林在二战时期是希特勒的副司令 他指定的接班人。和希特勒一样，戈林也自认为是一个艺术品收藏家。他在整个二战时期足迹遍布欧洲，盗取，豪夺也偶尔购买各种绘画作为他的收藏。但是他真的最想要的是扬·弗美尔的作品。希特勒有两幅，而他一幅也没有。所以他最终找到一个画商 一个叫作凡·米格伦的荷兰艺术品经销商，卖给他一幅很精致的弗美尔的作品，价值相当于现在的一千万美元。这成了他最钟爱的艺术品。
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."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.
二次世界大结束后，戈林被捕，在纽伦堡受审，最后被判处死刑。然后二战同盟部队在查找他的收藏时，找到了这些画，然后去追查那些卖画给他的人。与此同时,荷兰警察也来到阿姆斯特丹，逮捕了凡·米格伦。凡·米格伦被控叛国罪。叛国罪是要判死刑的。他判刑后的六周后。凡·米格伦认罪了。但是他否认叛国罪。他说：“我没有出售一幅伟大的杰作给纳粹。因为我自己画的，我是个仿画家。”。没有人相信他。他说：“我能证明的。给我画布和颜料。我可以画一幅比卖给那个可恶的纳粹好得多的弗美尔作品。我还要酒和吗啡，因为有了这些我才能工作。”所以他们给了他这些东西。他画了一幅美丽的弗美尔作品。叛国罪也随之撤销。他被判了个较轻的伪造罪，被判刑一年，他死后成为荷兰人民的英雄。关于凡·米格伦还有很多故事可以说。但我现在回来说戈林。在这张照片里他在纽伦堡受审。
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."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.
那时的戈林，据所有的罪状，是一个可怕的人。甚至对纳粹分子来说，他也是个可怕的人。美籍审讯管形容他。是一个和睦的精神变态的人。但是，当他在被告知他所钟爱的绘画其实是赝品时的反应时，你可能会同情他。根据他的传记作者说，“他看上去好像第一次发现这个世界上存在着邪恶。”之后他很快就自杀了。他最终发现，他认为的这幅画其实是那幅赝品。它看上去一模一样，但是它们的来源不同，这是不同的艺术品。
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.
不只是他感到震惊。有一次凡·米格伦受审讯时，他不停地唠叨。他吹嘘说所有其他画家画的伟大作品都是他画的。其中特别是《伊默斯的晚餐》。这幅被视为弗美尔最优秀的杰作，他的极品———全世界的人都会前来参观——其实是一幅赝品。不是这幅画，而是那幅画。而这一被发现。它立刻被博物馆撤下，失去了一切价值。
Why does this matter? I’m a 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 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, about 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.
为什么这个很重要呢。你们这些心理学家，为什么来源那么重要？为什么我们对知道东西从哪里来的反应那么强烈？很多人都会回答说：很多社会学家，比如Veblen维布伦和Wolfe沃尔夫，会说我们之所以会那么重视东西的来源，是因为我们很势利，因为我们重视身份地位。连同其他一些东西，如果你想显示你富有，有权势。拥有一幅真迹总是比仿画要好得多，因为真迹总是比仿制的少。我也不怀疑这也起了点作用，但是我今天想说服你们，这其中还有别的原因。我想说服你们，从某种程度上来说，人类是天生的本质主义者。我说这句话的意思是，我们对事物的反应不只是根据我们看到的、感受到的和听到的做出的。相反，我们的反应是以我们的信奉为条件的，他们到底是什么，从哪里来，用什么做的，他们潜藏的内质是什么。我想说这种特性不但表现在我们怎样看待事物，而且表现在我们对事情做出反应。
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.
所以我想说快乐其实是很深层的，不光是比较高层次的快乐，比如艺术带给人的快乐是这样。而且大多数看似简单的快乐也是这样。都是受我们对事物潜在本质认识的影响。比如食品。你会吃这块肉吗。好的答案是，“要看这是什么了？”如果是猪肉不是牛肉你们中的有些人就吃了。而有些人则吃牛肉而不吃猪肉。如果是老鼠肉，或是人肉，大概很少有人会吃。如果这是一块颜色奇怪的豆腐，你们中的一些人就吃了。这并不奇怪。
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.
但是更有趣的是，你觉得味道如何会取决于你认为你在吃什么。我们拿小孩做示范。你怎样才能让小孩更可能去吃胡萝卜和喝牛奶，而且更喜欢吃胡萝卜和喝牛奶，觉得它们味道很好呢?很简单，你告诉他们这是从麦当劳买来的。他们相信麦当劳的食品味道更好。这会引导他们感受更好的味道。
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 fMRI 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.
你怎样让成年人更喜欢葡萄酒？很简单，把酒从一个贵的瓶子里倒出来。现在有几十个，可能是上百个研究显示，如果你相信你在喝昂贵的东西，你会觉得它更好喝。最近有个用神经科学方式的实验。他们让人躺进dMRI核磁共振成像扫描仪，躺在那里的人一边用一根管子吸葡萄酒。他们面前是展示酒的信息的屏幕。当然，每个人其实喝的都是一模一样的酒。但是如果你相信你在喝昂贵酒时，大脑掌管快乐和奖赏的那个区域。就像圣诞树一样照亮了起来。你不只是说你感到更快乐，或是你更喜欢这个贵酒，你真的是用不同的方式在感受这件事。
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.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.
就性感来说。这是我曾用在某些研究里的刺激方式。如果只是让人们看这些照片。他们会说这些人挺有魅力。但你认为他们多有魅力，多性感，能让你产生浪漫的感觉，关键在于你觉得你在看谁。你也许认为左边这张图是男性，右边这张图是女性。但如果这样的认知是错误的，那感觉就大不一样了。如果他们比你们想象得要年轻或年长得多，那也会有不同的结果。当你发现你带着性欲看着的其实是你的儿子或女儿，其实是你的母亲或父亲会大不相同，得知那人是你的亲人通常会扼杀掉欲望。也许快乐心理学上，最让人振奋的发现是还有比外表好看更多的东西存在。如果你喜欢某人，你觉得他们更顺眼。这就是为什么幸福婚姻中的夫妇会觉得他们的另一半远比其他人认为的那样要好看得多。
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 that 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.
一个特别典型的例子是一种称做替身综合症的疾病。替身综合症是一种精神疾病，会让人产生一种特别的幻觉。替身综合症患者相信这世界上他们最爱的人被完美的替身给替换了。替身综合症常常造成悲剧。患者杀害他们最爱的人，相信他们杀的是一个冒名顶替者。但是至少有一个案例表明。替身综合症患者得到了美满的结局。这是1931年的一个纪录。“研究记录一位患有替身综合症的女性曾抱怨她那位天资不足且缺乏魅力的情人”。但这是在她患替身综合症之前。她得了病以后，“她高兴地汇报说，她发现了他有两重性。他富有，强健，英俊，有贵族气质。”当然，这是同样一个人，但是她看他的方式不一样了。
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.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.
第三个例子是关于日常用品。你喜欢一样东西可以是因为它的用处。你可以把鞋穿脚上，你可以用高尔夫球棒打球；而嚼口香糖没带给你任何东西。但是这三样东西都有价值，比它们能为你做的更多的价值基于它们的历史。这个高尔夫球杆原来的主人是肯尼迪在一个拍卖会上卖了七十五万美元。这泡泡糖是流行明星小甜甜布兰妮嚼过的，后来卖了几百块美元。事实上，心爱的人吃剩下的食品也是很有市场的。这双鞋可能是三样里最有价值的。根据未经证实的报导，一位沙特阿拉伯的富翁花了一千万美元买了这双鞋。这就是那双几年前在一个伊拉克记者会上丢向小布什的鞋子。
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.
而这种物品产生的吸引力并不是只发生在名人物品上。我们每一个人，大部分人的生活中，有某些东西是无法被取代的。它的价值来自于物品的历史——也许是你的结婚戒指，也许是你孩子的婴儿鞋子——如果它丢了，你就无法再找回来。你可以得到看上去或感觉上相似的东西，但你无法找回一模一样的东西。与我的同事乔治·纽曼George Newman和吉尔·迪森德鲁克Gil Diesendruck一起，我们观察是什么样的因素，什么样的背景，会让人们喜欢物品。所以在我们某一个实验里，我们请人们说出他们喜欢的名人，一位他们崇拜的还在世的人。
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."
其中有人回答乔治·克鲁尼。然后我们问他们，“你愿意花多少钱买乔治·克鲁尼的毛衣？”答案是一个不小的数字——比买一件全新的毛衣要价多——也比你不崇拜的人所拥有的毛衣要价多。我们给他们设定了不同的限制然后我们问了其他的话题—，和不同的条件。例如，我们告诉某些人。“听好，你能买那件毛衣，但你不能告诉任何人你拥有那件毛衣，而且你也不能转卖它。”它的价值就跌了，这说明了我们喜欢这件毛衣的其中一个原因。而真正造成影响的是，你告诉人们：“看，你可以再把毛衣卖出去，你可以吹捧毛衣的价值。但在你得到毛衣之前。这毛衣已经完全洗干净了。”这点造成毛衣的价值大跌。像我太太说的：“你已经把克鲁尼的味道洗掉了”。
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.
所以让我们回来谈艺术。我喜欢夏卡尔，我喜欢夏卡尔的作品。如果在座有人想在演讲结束后送我礼物。你可以送我夏卡尔的作品。但是我不要复制品，尽管我也不能分辨其中的差别。这不是因为，不是单纯因为我是一个势力的人，想吹嘘自己拥有一幅真迹。而是因为我想要拥有一样具有特殊历史的东西。对艺术品来说。历史意义是特别重要的。哲学家丹尼斯·达顿在他精彩的著作《艺术直觉》说明了“艺术作品的价值。存在于对人类表现出来的创造力的假设”。这点足以解释。真迹和仿画的不同。真品和复制品看起来相同，但他们拥有不同的历史背景。真品是典型的艺术创造的产物，而仿画不是。这个理论可以解释人们在艺术品味上的差别。
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.
这是杰克逊·波洛克的作品。在座有谁对杰克逊·波洛克的作品感兴趣？好。那在座的谁对这幅作品毫无兴趣？他们就是不喜欢它。我不在这里宣布谁是对的。但我来做一次人类直觉的实证。也就是说，如果你喜欢杰克逊·波洛克的作品，你会比那些不喜欢他作品的人更愿意去相信这些创造作品是很不容易的。这需要花上很多的时间和精力，还有创造力。我故意用杰克逊·波洛克当作例子，是因为有一位年轻的美国艺术家，她用跟杰克逊·波洛克相同的手法绘画。她的作品价值成千上万美金——大部分的原因是因为她是一位非常年轻的艺术家。
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.
这位是马拉·奥姆斯特德，三岁时就完成了她大部分的作品。而关于玛拉·奥姆斯特德，有意思的是，她的家人犯了一个错误，他们邀请电视节目“60分钟二”到他们家中拍摄她作画。然后他们报导出她父亲在教导她作画。当这个节目在电视上播出后，她的画突然就没有了价值。从实际上来说，这是一样的画，但是作品的历史背景改变了
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.After being there for three-quarters of an hour, he made 32 dollars. 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 dollars 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.
我一直在讲视觉艺术，但我还要讲两个音乐的例子。这位是约书亚·贝尔Joshua Bell，一个非常著名的小提琴家。华盛顿邮报的记者基恩·魏因加滕Gene Weingarten决定招他参与做一项大胆的实验。问题是：大家愿意花多少钱在约书亚·贝尔的身上和约书亚·贝尔的音乐，如果他们不知道他们是在听约书亚·贝尔的情况下呢？。因此他让约书亚·贝尔带着他价值百万的小提琴站在华盛顿的地铁站，然后站在角落看看他能赚到多少钱。这是一小段影片记录。在那里演奏了四十五分钟后，他赚了32美元。不差，但也不好。显然要真正享受约书亚·贝尔的音乐，你必须得知道你在听的是约书亚·贝尔的演奏。他实际上多赚了20块，但是他没有算进去。因为这位女士出现——各位看到在影片的最后——她出现了。因为她在几周前曾在美国国会图书馆听过他在一个衣冠楚楚的聚会上演出过。所以当看到他站在地铁站里，她惊呆了。她报以怜悯之情。她从皮包里拿出二十块钱给他。
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.For a dollar 99, you can listen to that silence, which is different than other forms of silence.
第二个音乐的例子是约翰·凯奇John Cage的现代派作品《四分三十三秒》。如在座各位所知，这首曲子，钢琴演奏者坐在椅子上时，打开钢琴，就坐在那儿，整整四分三十三秒都不做任何事——这段时间是静默的。人们对此有着不同的看法。但我想指出的是，这可以从iTunes上购买这首曲子。花上1.99美元，你可以聆听那段静默的音乐，这和其他形式的静默是不同的。
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.
到现在，我说的都是有关快乐的话题，但是我想说的是，我刚说的每一件事也能用在痛苦上，以及如何认识我们的体验。你们对于事物本质的信念会影响到如何受伤害。一项很可爱的实验是柯特·格雷Kurt Gray和丹·韦格纳。他们把哈佛的大学生连接到电子刺激仪上。然后给他们一系列的疼痛电子刺激，那是一系列五次的疼痛刺激。有一半的人被告知这些电击，是有人在另外一个房间传递给他们的，但是在另一间房间的人并不知道他们在给别人刺激。他们没有恶意，只是按一个按钮。第一次的刺激记录是非常痛苦。第二次刺激感到轻了一点，因为你感到有些习惯了。第三，四，五次。痛苦随次数递减。而在另一个条件下，受试者被告知在隔壁房间的人是故意在给他们电击——知道要电击他们。第一次的刺激痛的像在地狱。第二次一样痛。而第三第四和第五次。如果你相信某人是故意要这么做，感受到的痛苦就更厉害。
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."
最极端的例子是在某些情况下，痛苦在一定的情况下可以转变为快乐。人类有这个特别有趣的特质，往往能在掌控的情况下，常常会去寻找低层次的痛苦，然后从中获得乐趣，就像在吃辣椒和玩过山车一样。这观点其实早就被诗人约翰·弥尔顿所总结过。他写到：“心是它自己的住家，在它里面能把天堂变地狱，地狱变天堂”。
And I’ll end with that. Thank you.
而我就以此作为结束，谢谢。
RECOMMEND
推荐阅读353篇Ted英文演讲视频集合，收藏~
57篇经典BBC纪录片合集，收藏学习吧！
《纽约时报》年度十大好书，2019最值得看的英文书单！
54部经典经典英文名著合集，收藏贴~20部学英语必看的电影，每一部都是经典290篇双语阅读美文大合集，mark~我知道你“在看”