TED演讲：思考的角度决定一切！

奥美广告狂人Rory Sutherland强调了思考框架的重要性。他认为如何看待发生在我们身边的事情，比那些事情所发生的环境和本质更加重要。

选择对的思想框架和感知价值，事物的实际价值便会完全的被改变。演讲中，他用了很多心理学、经济研究学里的例子来阐释感知与实际价值的偏差，值得一看！

演讲者：Rory Sutherland

广告大师 ，英国奥美集团副总监；奥美伦敦董事副主席兼CEO。作为全球最大的传播集团之一奥美集团的优秀领导者，这位创意大师有自己对广告独到的见解。不仅如此，风趣幽默的语言也让这位广告人的演讲别具一格。

TED视频TED演讲稿

What you have here is an electronic cigarette. It's something that, since it was invented a year or two ago, has given me untold happiness.现在你看到的是一只电子香烟。自从它一两年前被发明出来。这支烟带给了我无可言喻的快乐。
A little bit of it, I think, is the nicotine, but there's something much bigger than that; which is, ever since, in the UK, they banned smoking in public places, I've never enjoyed a drinks party ever again. 我想其中一点是由于尼古丁的缘故，但不只限于此。自从英国开始禁止人们在公共地区吸烟后，我再也没有享受过聚会了。
And the reason, I only worked out just the other day, which is: when you go to a drinks party and you stand up and hold a glass of red wine and you talk endlessly to people, you don't actually want to spend all the time talking. It's really, really tiring. 直到最近我才想到我无法再享受聚会的原因。因为你去到了聚会后，站在一角，拿着红酒，然后与别人闲聊。不过你并不能一直不停的聊天，那样是很很累人的。Sometimes you just want to stand there silently, alone with your thoughts. Sometimes you just want to stand in the corner and stare out of the window. Now the problem is, when you can't smoke, if you stand and stare out of the window on your own, you're an antisocial, friendless idiot.有时你只想静静的呆在一旁，独自的思考。有时你只想站在角落凝视窗外。问题是，当你不能吸烟时，一个人呆在角落望着窗外意味着你是一个孤僻没有朋友的傻子。
If you stand and stare out of the window on your own with a cigarette, you're a fucking philosopher.但如果你只身伫立于角落凝望窗外，并且拿着一只香烟，那意味着你是一个TMD思想家。
So the power of reframing things cannot be overstated. What we have is exactly the same thing, the same activity, but one of them makes you feel great and the other one, with just a small change of posture, makes you feel terrible. 所以，再构造事情的能力是极其重要的。同样的事件，同样的活动，只改变其中一小点，一个活动可以让你感觉很棒，而另一个可以让你感觉很糟糕。And I think one of the problems with classical economics is, it's absolutely preoccupied with reality. And reality isn't a particularly good guide to human happiness. Why, for example, are pensioners much happier than the young unemployed? 我认为古典经济学中的一个问题就在于它太专致于现实。而现实并不是一个可以领导人们走向快乐的好指导。为什么？举例来说吧，退休的人和年轻的无业人士相比是不是更快乐点？Both of them, after all, are in exactly the same stage of life. You both have too much time on your hands and not much money. But pensioners are reportedly very, very happy, whereas the unemployed are extraordinarily unhappy and depressed. 两者都处于相同的地位，两者都属于有时间没闲钱的人。但是据调查显示退行的人要快乐的多，相反，失业人士却非常的情绪低落。The reason, I think, is that the pensioners believe they've chosen to be pensioners, whereas the young unemployed feel it's been thrust upon them.原因就在于，退休的人相信他们自己选择了退休，而失业的人却认为他们是没有选择的被迫失业。
In England, the upper-middle classes have actually solved this problem perfectly, because they've re-branded unemployment. If you're an upper-middle-class English person, you call unemployment "a year off."在英格兰，社会中上阶层的人已经完美的解决了这个问题，他们重新包装了失业。如果你是一个中上阶级的英国人，你会用“年休”代替失业。
And that's because having a son who's unemployed in Manchester is really quite embarrassing. But having a son who's unemployed in Thailand is really viewed as quite an accomplishment.那是因为如果你有一个儿子在曼彻斯特失业还是蛮丢脸的，但如果你的儿子在泰国失业却是一种另类的成就。 
But actually, the power to re-brand things -- to understand that our experiences, costs, things don't actually much depend on what they really are, but on how we view them -- I genuinely think can't be overstated. 但其实重新包装事情的力量 -- 理解到其实我们的经历，代价以及其他并不在于它们的本身，而在于我们如何看它们 -- 我真的认为它不能更加重要。
There's an experiment I think Daniel Pink refers to, where you put two dogs in a box and the box has an electric floor. Every now and then, an electric shock is applied to the floor, which pains the dogs. The only difference is one of the dogs has a small button in its half of the box. Daniel Pink 提到一个实验：将两条狗放入有着电子地板的箱子里。每过一会儿地板上会有电流通过，而狗会感觉疼痛。唯一的不同点在于，其中的一个条狗在它那二分之一个箱子中有一个小小的按钮。And when it nuzzles the button, the electric shock stops. The other dog doesn't have the button. It's exposed to exactly the same level of pain as the dog in the first box, but it has no control over the circumstances. Generally, the first dog can be relatively content. The second dog lapses into complete depression.每当它按下按钮，电流便会停止。另外一个狗没有这样一个按钮。它所受到的疼痛和另外一条狗是一样的，但它对于它的环境没有控制能力。一般来说第一条狗感觉还算满意，但第二条狗则陷入完全的萎靡不振。
The circumstances of our lives may actually matter less to our happiness than the sense of control we feel over our lives. It's an interesting question. We ask the question -- the whole debate in the Western world is about the level of taxation. 我们生活中的一切可能对于我们自己的快乐没有多大的关联，而我们感觉到我们对于现实的控制力有。这个问题很有意思。我们问一个问题 -- 西方国家大部分的争议都是关于税收的程度。But I think there's another debate to be asked, which is the level of control we have over our tax money, that what costs us 10 pounds in one context can be a curse; what costs us 10 pounds in a different context, we may actually welcome. 但我觉得另外一个争论可以被提出，那就是我们对于我们的税务的控制度。在一种情况下需要我们花十英镑可能是一种诅咒，但在另一种情况下它又可能被欢迎。You know, pay 20,000 pounds in tax toward health, and you're merely feeling a mug. Pay 20,000 pounds to endow a hospital ward, and you're called a philanthropist. I'm probably in the wrong country to talk about willingness to pay tax.你知道吗，当你为医疗交了2万英镑的税，你可能觉得被打劫了。但当你为捐助一个医院病房而交了2万英镑，你会被称为慈善家。我可能在一个错的国家里提到纳税的意愿。
So I'll give you one in return: how you frame things really matters. Do you call it "The bailout of Greece"? Or "The bailout of a load of stupid banks which lent to Greece"?那我换一个例子，看看你们是如何定义重要的事情的。你们称它为对于希腊的紧急援助，还是对于一帮愚蠢到贷款给希腊的银行的紧急援助？ 
Because they are actually the same thing. What you call them actually affects how you react to them, viscerally and morally. I think psychological value is great, to be absolutely honest. 因为它们其实讲的是同一件事情。你称呼它们的方法会影响到你们感情上以及伦理上的反应。说实话，我觉得心理价值非常重要。One of my great friends, a professor called Nick Chater, who's the Professor of Decision Sciences in London, believes we should spend far less time looking into humanity's hidden depths, and spend much more time exploring the hidden shallows. I think that's true, actually. 我最好的朋友之一，一个名叫 Nick Chater 的教授，他是伦敦的决策学教授，他觉得我们与其花费时间来观察人性隐藏的深度，不如花更多的时间来探索它隐藏的表性。我觉得这是对的。I think impressions have an insane effect on what we think and what we do. But what we don't have is a really good model of human psychology -- at least pre-Kahneman, perhaps, we didn't have a really good model of human psychology to put alongside models of engineering, of neoclassical economics.我觉得印象对我们的思想以及活动有着很大的影响。但我们并没有一个很好的人类心理学的典型。至少在卡尔曼(Kahneman) 之前，我们没有一个很好的，可以和工程以及新古典主义经济学的模型相提并论的模型。
So people who believed in psychological solutions didn't have a model. We didn't have a framework. This is what Warren Buffett's business partner Charlie Munger calls "a latticework on which to hang your ideas." Engineers, economists, classical economists all had a very, very robust existing latticework on which practically every idea could be hung. 所以相信心理解决方式的人们没有一个模型。我们没有一个框架。这就是沃伦·巴菲特的生意合作伙伴查理·芒格所称的“一个用来悬挂你的想法的格子框架。”工程师，经济学家，古典主义经济学家，他们都有非常结实的格子框架来悬挂他们每一个想法。We merely have a collection of random individual insights without an overall model. And what that means is that, in looking at solutions, we've probably given too much priority to what I call technical engineering solutions, Newtonian solutions, and not nearly enough to the psychological ones.我们却没有一个全面性的模型，只有一堆随机的个人想法。这意味着，在寻找答案的时候，我们可能给了，我所谓的技术性的工程方式，牛顿式的解决方式太多的重要性，而忘记了心理上的解决方式。
You know my example of the Eurostar: six million pounds spent to reduce the journey time between Paris and London by about 40 minutes. For 0.01 percent of this money, you could have put wi-fi on the trains, which wouldn't have reduced the duration of the journey, but would have improved its enjoyment and its usefulness far more. 你知道我的欧洲之星的例子。为了减少40分钟的从巴黎到伦敦的旅程，我们花了6百万磅。而在铁路上设置无线联网只需花这个钱的0.01%。虽然它不会减少旅途的时间，但它会使这个旅途更加愉快和有用。
For maybe 10 percent of the money, you could have paid all of the world's top male and female supermodels to walk up and down the train handing out free Château Pétrus to all the passengers.而用这份钱的百分之十，你可以让世界顶级的男性和女性超模在走廊上发送波得路堡红葡萄酒给旅客们。You'd still have five million pounds in change, and people would ask for the trains to be slowed down.你口袋中仍然会有5百万磅，而人们会希望这趟列车开的稍微慢些。 
Why were we not given the chance to solve that problem psychologically? I think it's because there's an imbalance, an asymmetry in the way we treat creative, emotionally driven psychological ideas versus the way we treat rational, numerical, spreadsheet-driven ideas. 为什么我们不能有用心理方式解决那个问题的机会？我觉得那是因为在我们对待创造性的，情感性的心理想法和我们对待理性的，数字的，数据的想法有着很大的差距。If you're a creative person, I think, quite rightly, you have to share all your ideas for approval with people much more rational than you. You have to go in and have a cost-benefit analysis, a feasibility study, an ROI study and so forth. And I think that's probably right. But this does not apply the other way around. 如果你是一个有创造性的人，很显然的，你需要和其他比你更加理性的人分享以及寻求意见。你需要通过一个成本效益分析，一个有效的投资报酬率的测验。我觉得这是合理的。但这反过来却并不成立。People who have an existing framework -- an economic framework, an engineering framework -- feel that, actually, logic is its own answer. What they don't say is, "Well, the numbers all seem to add up, but before I present this idea, I'll show it to some really crazy people to see if they can come up with something better." 很多有着现存的框架的人，比如经济或者工程的框架，认为那逻辑便是答案。他们不说的是：“这些数学感觉是对的，但在我提议这个想法之前，让我把它给一些疯狂的人看下，看看他们能不能想出更好的东西。”And so we -- artificially, I think -- prioritize what I'd call mechanistic ideas over psychological ideas.所以我们，我觉得是有意识的，相对于心理想法，更加看重于所谓的机械化的想法。
An example of a great psychological idea: the single best improvement in passenger satisfaction on the London Underground, per pound spent, came when they didn't add any extra trains, nor change the frequency of the trains; they put dot matrix display boards on the platforms -- 一个很好的心理想法的例子：伦敦地铁做到的，以花费的英镑来说，最好的旅客满意度提高的服务不是增加了铁路的数量或铁路的次数，而是他们所安置在站台上的矩阵显示板。because the nature of a wait is not just dependent on its numerical quality, its duration, but on the level of uncertainty you experience during that wait. Waiting seven minutes for a train with a countdown clock is less frustrating and irritating than waiting four minutes, knuckle biting, going, "When's this train going to damn well arrive?"因为等待的质量不仅仅在于它的时间长短，而在于等待期间对无法把握的时间的焦虑。在标写着“倒数7分钟”的倒数时钟旁等待铁路要比茫然的等待4分钟并想着 "这个该死的地铁到底什么时候才到？" 感觉好的多。
Here's a beautiful example of a psychological solution deployed in Korea. Red traffic lights have a countdown delay. It's proven to reduce the accident rate in experiments. Why? 这是一个在韩国应用的心理解决方式的很好的例子。红色的交通灯有一个倒计时显示。在实验中以证明它可以减少事故发生率。为什么？Because road rage, impatience and general irritation are massively reduced when you can actually see the time you have to wait. In China, not really understanding the principle behind this, they applied the same principle to green traffic lights --因为公路暴力，焦躁以及一般的不耐在你可以确实的看到需要等待的时间后会很大的减少。在中国它们也同样为绿色的交通灯设置了这样设施，我并不明白这样做的原理。
which isn't a great idea. You're 200 yards away, you realize you've got five seconds to go, you floor it.这并不是一个好的主意。你在200米开外，你发现绿灯只有5秒钟时间，你决定冲刺。 
The Koreans, very assiduously, did test both. The accident rate goes down when you apply this to red traffic lights; it goes up when you apply it to green traffic lights.韩国人测试了这两种方式。事故发生率在给红灯配置倒计时后减少，而在给绿灯配置倒计时后会增加。
This is all I'm asking for, really, in human decision making, is the consideration of these three things. I'm not asking for the complete primacy of one over the other. I'm merely saying that when you solve problems, you should look at all three of these equally, and you should seek as far as possible to find solutions which sit in the sweet spot in the middle.在做出各种决定之前这三个事情是我希望看到发生的。我并不是说其中的一个应该特别重要我只是说，当你在解决问题的时候，你应该同时考虑这三项，并在这三项居中找到最好的解决方式。
If you actually look at a great business, you'll nearly always see all of these three things coming into play. Really successful businesses -- Google is a great, great technological success, but it's also based on a very good psychological insight: 当你看一个成功的公司，你总是会看到这三项的影子。非常，非常成功的公司 -- 比如在技術上非常，非常成功的谷歌，都会基于非常好的心理想法：people believe something that only does one thing is better at that thing than something that does that thing and something else. It's an innate thing called "goal dilution." Ayelet Fishbach has written a paper about this.大家都相信当一个人专注的做一个事情的时候，他会，在这一件事情上，比其他做此事以及其他的事情的人要做的好、这个很自然的想法叫做目标分散。Ayelet Fishbach 为此写了一篇论文。
Everybody else at the time of Google, more or less, was trying to be a portal. Yes, there's a search function, but you also have weather, sports scores, bits of news. Google understood that if you're just a search engine, people assume you're a very, very good search engine. 每一个当时在谷歌的人都在尝试着无所不为。是的，他们有一个搜索功能，但也有天气，体育分数，小段时事。谷歌知道如果你只是一个搜索引擎，人们会认为你是一个非常，非常好的搜索引擎。All of you know this, actually, from when you go in to buy a television, and in the shabbier end of the row of flat-screen TVs, you can see, are these rather despised things called "combined TV and DVD players." 当你们去买一个电视的时候你们都会想到这点。在一排液晶电视旁边的灰暗的另一个角落，你可以看到一些无人问津的同时有着电视和DVD功能的机器。And we have no knowledge whatsoever of the quality of those things, but we look at a combined TV and DVD player and we go, "Uck. It's probably a bit of a crap telly and a bit rubbish as a DVD player." So we walk out of the shops with one of each. Google is as much a psychological success as it is a technological one.我们完全不知道这些东西的质量，但我们会不屑的看着它们并说：“厄，它应该比单独的电视或DVD机都要差一些。”所以我们每个都会买一个。谷歌在心理方面和它的技术同样的成功。
I propose that we can use psychology to solve problems that we didn't even realize were problems at all. This is my suggestion for getting people to finish their course of antibiotics. Don't give them 24 white pills; 我提议我们也可以用心理学去解决一些我们本来都不认为是问题的问题。以下是为让人们服用抗生素的建议。不要给他们24个白色的药丸。give them 18 white pills and six blue ones and tell them to take the white pills first, and then take the blue ones. It's called "chunking." The likelihood that people will get to the end is much greater when there is a milestone somewhere in the middle.给他们18个白色药丸和6个蓝色的药丸，然后告诉他们先吃白色的药丸，再吃蓝色的药丸。这招叫组块。人们服用完的可能性会大大的提高，当中间有一个类似于里程碑的柬西。
One of the great mistakes, I think, of economics is it fails to understand that what something is -- whether it's retirement, unemployment, cost -- is a function, not only of its amount, but also its meaning.我认为经济学最大的错误之一便是没有去真正地理解类似于退休，失业，代价这样的东西不只是它的量的应变量，也是它的意义的应变量。
This is a toll crossing in Britain. Quite often queues happen at the tolls. Sometimes you get very, very severe queues. You could apply the same principle, actually, to the security lanes in airports. 这是一个英国的收费站。收费站前很经常会排起长队。有些时候队会非常，非常的长。同样的原理可以被运用到机场的安检线。What would happen if you could actually pay twice as much money to cross the bridge, but go through a lane that's an express lane? It's not an unreasonable thing to do; it's an economically efficient thing to do. Time means more to some people than others. 当你可以在付两倍的钱后通过一个快速的车道后会发生些什么？它不是一个不合理的事情，也是一个有效率的事情。对于一些人来说，它们的时间比其他的人重要。If you're waiting trying to get to a job interview, you'd patently pay a couple of pounds more to go through the fast lane. If you're on the way to visit your mother-in-law, you'd probably prefer --如果你在等着参加一个工作面试，你毫无疑问的会付双倍的钱而走快捷车道。如果你正在去拜访你的岳母，
you'd probably prefer to stay on the left.你或许会偏向在左边等待。
The only problem is if you introduce this economically efficient solution, people hate it ... because they think you're deliberately creating delays at the bridge in order to maximize your revenue, and, "Why on earth should I pay to subsidize your incompetence?" 唯一的问题是，当你启用这个有效率的方式，人们会讨厌它。因为他们觉得你有意的在桥前造成堵塞来增加收入，以及“为什么我们需要为你们的无能付钱？”On the other hand, change the frame slightly and create charitable yield management, so the extra money you get goes not to the bridge company, it goes to charity ... and the mental willingness to pay completely changes. 但换个角度来说，把这个想法的框架做微小的改变，使它变成慈善的收入，使这些多余的钱不会进入建桥的公司的口袋而被用于慈善事业，人们的想法会完全的不一样。You have a relatively economically efficient solution, but one that actually meets with public approval and even a small degree of affection, rather than being seen as bastardy.你会有一个有效率的解决方式，并且它会被公众批准甚至赞扬，而不是批判。
So where economists make the fundamental mistake is they think that money is money. Actually, my pain experienced in paying five pounds is not just proportionate to the amount, but where I think that money is going. 当经济学家做出错误的决定时，他们只想到钱和利润。但实际上我对多付5磅的意见并不是在于这个数额的数量，而是这笔钱的去处。And I think understanding that could revolutionize tax policy. It could revolutionize the public services. It could actually change things quite significantly.而我认为明白这个会对税收政策造成巨大的变化。它也可以改变公众服务们。它真的可以大幅度的改变很多事情。
Here's a guy you all need to study. He's an Austrian School economist who was first active in the first half of the 20th century in Vienna. What was interesting about the Austrian School is they actually grew up alongside Freud. And so they're predominantly interested in psychology. 这是一个你们都需要研究的人。他是一个在20世纪前半叶非常活跃的奥地利学派经济学家。关于奥地利学派的一个很有意思的事情便是他们成长与弗洛伊德的时代。所以他们对心理学非常感兴趣。They believed that there was a discipline called praxeology, which is a prior discipline to the study of economics. Praxeology is the study of human choice, action and decision-making. I think they're right. 他们认为一门叫做“人类行为学”的学科必须被作为经济学的首要学科。人类行为学学习人类的选择，行动以及做出决定的方式。我觉得他们是对的。I think the danger we have in today's world is we have the study of economics considers itself to be a prior discipline to the study of human psychology. But as Charlie Munger says, "If economics isn't behavioral, I don't know what the hell is."我觉得今天的世界很危险的把经济学放于人类心理学的学科之上。但就像查理。芒格说的：“如果经济学不是行为上的研究，我就不知道它到底是什么了。”
Von Mises, interestingly, believes economics is just a subset of psychology. I think he just refers to economics as "the study of human praxeology under conditions of scarcity." 馮·米塞斯相信经济学只是心理学的一部分。我记得他称经济学是“在资源有限的情况研究人类行为学。”But Von Mises, among many other things, I think uses an analogy which is probably the best justification and explanation for the value of marketing, the value of perceived value and the fact that we should treat it as being absolutely equivalent to any other kind of value.我觉得馮·米塞斯这个比拟最好的解释了市场学和感知价值的意义，以及我们必须将它们提到和任何其他的价值同等的地位的事实。
We tend to, all of us, even those of us who work in marketing, think of value in two ways: the real value, which is when you make something in a factory or provide a service, and then there's a dubious value, which you create by changing the way people look at things. Von Mises completely rejected this distinction. 我们每个人 - 包括在市场销售工作的 -- 都会从两个方面考虑价值的意义。一方面有真正价值，它是当你在工厂生产的东西或是提供的服务。也有另外一种比较模糊的价值，它是当你改变了人们看待某件事物的看法。馮·米塞斯完全的唾弃了这种分别。And he used this following analogy: he referred to strange economists called the French physiocrats, who believed that the only true value was what you extracted from the land. 而他用了一下的比拟。他提到了一帮叫法国重农主义者的奇异的经济学家，他们相信真正价值是有土地而来的。So if you're a shepherd or a quarryman or a farmer, you created true value. If however, you bought some wool from the shepherd and charged a premium for converting it into a hat, you weren't actually creating value, you were exploiting the shepherd.如果你是一个牧羊人，采石工或者农夫，你创造着真正地价值。但如果你从牧羊人那里买了羊毛，并再卖出以羊毛制造的帽子时要求额外的费用，你并没有创造价值，你只是在剥削那牧羊人。
Now, Von Mises said that modern economists make exactly the same mistake with regard to advertising and marketing. He says if you run a restaurant, there is no healthy distinction to be made between the value you create by cooking the food and the value you create by sweeping the floor. 馮·米塞斯说现代经济学家在广告和市场销售方面犯了同样的错误。他说，如果你开了一家餐厅，在你的烹饪的食物所创造的价值和你打扫地板所创造的价值之间并没有健康的区别。One of them creates, perhaps, the primary product -- the thing we think we're paying for -- the other one creates a context within which we can enjoy and appreciate that product. And the idea that one of them should have priority over the other is fundamentally wrong.其中一个或许创造了主要的产物 -- 我们所为之付钱的 -- 另外一个创造了一个我们可以享受和赞美产物的环境。而其中一个实际上比另外一个更重要的想法从根本上就是错误的。
Try this quick thought experiment: imagine a restaurant that serves Michelin-starred food, but where the restaurant smells of sewage and there's human feces on the floor.试试看这个快速的思想实验。设想一个提供米其林星级的食物的餐厅，但餐厅本身闻起来像下水道并有排泄物在地板上。
The best thing you can do there to create value is not actually to improve the food still further, it's to get rid of the smell and clean up the floor. And it's vital we understand this.在此你可以做的最好的来创造价值的并不是考虑食物上的更多的进步，而是去除异味和清理地板。我们对它的理解非常重要。
If that seems like a sort of strange, abstruse thing -- in the UK, the post office had a 98 percent success rate at delivering first-class mail the next day. They decided this wasn't good enough, and they wanted to get it up to 99. The effort to do that almost broke the organization. 如果它看起来像一个非常奇特，难解的事情，在英国，邮局对于在隔天送递头等信件有着98%的成功率。他们觉得这还不够好，并且尝试将它提升到99%。而试图达到这个目标的尝试几乎分裂了这个公司。If, at the same time, you'd gone and asked people, "What percentage of first-class mail arrives the next day?" the average answer, or the modal answer, would have been "50 to 60 percent." Now, if your perception is much worse than your reality, what on earth are you doing trying to change the reality? That's like trying to improve the food in a restaurant that stinks. 而同时如果你问人们，“头等信件有多少在隔日便会到达？”大部分人会回答大概50%到60%之间。如果公众看法比实际差太多，你去尝试改变实际有什么用？它就像一个很臭的餐厅试图提升食物质量。What you need to do is, first of all, tell people that 98 percent of first-class mail gets there the next day. That's pretty good. I would argue, in Britain, there's a much better frame of reference, which is to tell people that more first-class mail arrives the next day in the UK than in Germany, because generally, in Britain, if you want to make us happy about something, just tell us we do it better than the Germans.你需要做的第一件事情就是告诉大家 98%的邮件会在隔天到达。这样就很好。我甚至会主张，在英国你可以用一个更好的框架，那边是告诉人们相比德国，更多的头等信件会在隔天到达。因为一般来说在英国，如果你想让我们开心，只要告诉我们我们比德国人做的更好。 
Choose your frame of reference and the perceived value, and therefore, the actual value is completely transformed. It has to be said of the Germans that the Germans and the French are doing a brilliant job of creating a united Europe. 选择对的思想框架和感知价值，实际价值便会完全的被改变。我们必须承认德国人和法国人正在为一个团结的欧洲做出很大的努力。The only thing they didn't expect is they're uniting Europe through a shared mild hatred of the French and Germans. But I'm British; that's the way we like it.而他们唯一没有想到的便是他们基於对法国人和德国人的轻微敌意上团结整个欧洲。但我是英国人，我觉得这样挺好。
What you'll also notice is that, in any case, our perception is leaky. We can't tell the difference between the quality of the food and the environment in which we consume it. All of you will have seen this phenomenon if you have your car washed or valeted. When you drive away, your car feels as if it drives better.你可以发现在任何角度下我们的知觉都是有空隙的。我们不能区分食物的质量以及我们在享受食物的环境。每个洗过车的人都会观察到这样的现象。当你开走时，你的车开起来感觉好一些。
And the reason for this -- unless my car valet mysteriously is changing the oil and performing work which I'm not paying him for and I'm unaware of -- is because perception is, in any case, leaky.而原因便是，除非我的汽车清洗员偷偷的换了机油并做了一些我没有付费以及我不知道的工作，那便是因为我们的知觉都是有漏洞的。
Analgesics that are branded are more effective at reducing pain than analgesics that are not branded. I don't just mean through reported pain reduction -- actual measured pain reduction. And so perception actually is leaky in any case. So if you do something that's perceptually bad in one respect, you can damage the other.名牌的止痛剂相对于没有牌的止痛剂有更好的减除疼痛的效果。我并不只是说病患报告的疼痛消除，而也是实际上测量到的疼痛消除。所以知觉在任何时候都是有漏洞的。所以如果你在做一件从一方面的知觉来看是坏的的事情，你也可以对另外一面造成伤害。
Thank you very much.非常感谢。

RECOMMEND
推荐阅读484篇Ted英文演讲视频整理（音频+演讲稿）
100篇美国20世纪精彩演讲（文本+MP3音频）
108篇经典BBC纪录片合集，强烈推荐！
《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~2010年代豆瓣十佳经典影片！全部9.0分以上（附资源）
《暮光之城》经典台词整理（附1-4部资源）
《风雨哈佛路》经典回顾：你的人生，其实早就注定了（附完整视频）我知道你“在看”