TED关于“直觉”的有趣冷知识，99%你都不知道！
什么是表达观点的最好⽅法？组织⼼理学家尼罗·西⽡纳坦（Niro Sivanathan）就“稀释效应”上了⼀堂引⼈⼊胜的课，这种认知上的怪癖削弱了我们最有⼒的案例，并揭⽰了为什么简洁才是说服的真正灵魂。
360wifi驱动演讲者： Niro Sivanathan
⽚长：10 : 50
今天我生日
Imagine you're on a shopping trip. You've been looking for a luxury-line dinnerware t to add to your kitchen collection. As it turns out, your local department store has announced a sale on the very t you've been looking for, so you rush to the store to find a 24-piece t on sale.
想象你在购物旅⾏。你⼀直在寻找⼀套豪华系列餐具，以增加你的厨房收藏。事实证明，你当地的百货公司已经宣布出售你⼀直在寻找的那⼀套，所以你赶紧去商店找⼀套24件的在售。
Eight dinner plates, all in good condition; eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition; and eight desrt plates, all in good condition. Now, consider for a moment how much you would be willing to pay for this dinnerware t. Now imagine an alternate scenario.
⼋个餐盘，都完好⽆损；⼋个汤碗和沙拉碗，都完好⽆损；⼋个甜点盘，都完好⽆损。现在，想⼀下你愿意为这套餐具付多少钱。现在想象另⼀种情况。
Not having en this 24-piece luxury t, you rush to the store to find a 40-piece dinnerware t on sale. Eight dinner plates, all in good condition; eight soup and salad bowls, all in good condition; eight desrt plates, all in good condition; eight cups, two of them are broken; eight saucers, ven of them are broken.
假如你没看过这套24件套的豪华餐具，你赶紧去商店找⼀套在打折的40件套的餐具。⼋个餐盘，都完好⽆损；⼋个汤碗和沙拉碗，都完好⽆损；⼋个甜点盘，都完好⽆损；⼋个杯⼦，两个坏了；⼋个碟⼦，七个坏了。
Now consider for a moment how much you would be willing to pay for this 40-piece dinnerware t. This is the premi of a clever experiment by Christopher He from the University of Chicago. It's also the question that I've asked hundreds of students in my classroom. What were their respons?
现在考虑⼀下你愿意为这套40件套的餐具付多少钱。这是芝加哥⼤学的克⾥斯托弗·许的⼀个聪明实验的前提。这也是我在教室⾥问过⼏百个学⽣的问题。你猜他们的反应是什么？
On average, when afforded the 24-piece luxury t, they were willing to spend 390 pounds for the t. When afforded the 40-piece dinnerware t, on average, they were willing to spend a whopping 192 pounds for this dinnerware t. Strictly speaking, the are an irrational t of numbers.
平均来说，当他们买得起这套24件套的奢侈品时，他们愿意花390英镑买这套。平均来说，当他们拿到这套40件套的餐具时，他们愿意花192英镑买这套餐具。严格地说，这是⼀组⽆理的数字。
You'll notice the 40-piece dinnerware t includes all elements you would get in the 24-piece t, plus six cups and one saucer. And not only are you not willing to spend what you will for the 24-piece t, you're only willing to spend roughly half of what you will for that 24-piece t.
你会注意到40件套的餐具包括24件套的所有元素，外加6个杯⼦和⼀个茶碟。你不仅不愿意花24件套的钱，⽽且只愿意花24件套的⼀半。
What you're witnessing here is what's referred to as the dilution effect. The broken items, if you will, dilute our overall perceived value of that entire t. Turns out this cognitive quirk at the checkout counter has important implications for our ability to be heard and listened to when we speak up.
你在这⾥看到的是所谓的稀释效应。如果你愿意的话，这些破损的物品会冲淡我们对这⼀整套物品的整体感知价值。结果发现，结账台上的这种认知怪癖对我们说话时被倾听的能⼒有着重要的影响。
果发现，结账台上的这种认知怪癖对我们说话时被倾听的能⼒有着重要的影响。
Whether you are speaking up against a failing strategy, speaking against the grain of a shared opinion among friends or speaking truth to power, this takes courage. Often, the points that are raid are both legitimate but also shared by others. But sadly, and far too often, we e people speak up but fail to influence others in the way that they had hoped for.
⽆论你是反对⼀个失败的策略，反对朋友间的共同意见，还是对权⼒说真话，这都需要勇⽓。通常，提出的观点是合法的，但也为其他⼈所认同。但不幸的是，我们经常看到⼈们直⾔不讳，却未能以他们所希望的⽅式影响他⼈。
Put another way, their message was sound, but their delivery proved faulty. If we could understand this cognitive bias, it holds important implications for how we could craft and mold our messages to have the impact we all desire ... to be more influential as a communicator.
换句话说，他们的信息是正确的，但他们的传递被证明是错误的。如果我们能理解这种认知偏见，它对我们如何精⼼设计和塑造我们的信息以产⽣我们所渴望的影响有着重要的意义......作为⼀个传播者更具影响⼒。
Let's exit the aisles of the shopping center and enter a context in which we practice almost automatically every day: the judgment of others. Let me introduce you to two individuals. Tim studies 31 hours a week outside of class. Tom, like Tim, also spends 31 hours outside of class studying.
让我们⾛出购物中⼼的过道，进⼊⼀个我们⼏乎每天都⾃动练习的环境：他⼈的判断。让我给你介绍两个⼈。蒂姆每周课外学习31⼩时。汤姆和蒂姆⼀样，也在课外学习31个⼩时。
He has a brother and two sisters, he visits his grandparents, he once went on a blind date, plays pool every two months. When participants are asked to evaluate the cognitive aptitude of the individuals, or more importantly, their scholastic achievement, on average, people rate Tim to have a significantly higher GPA than that of Tom.
他有⼀个哥哥和两个姐姐，他去看望爷爷奶奶，他曾经相亲，每两个⽉打⼀次台球。当参与者被要求评估这些⼈的认知能⼒，或者更重要的是他们的学业成绩时，⼈们普遍认为Tim的平均绩点明显⾼于Tom。
But why? After all, both of them spend 31 hours a week outside of class. Turns out in the contexts, when we're prented such information, our minds utilize two categories of information: diagnostic and nondiagnostic. Diagnostic information is information of relevance to the valuation that is being m
ade.
但为什么呢？毕竟，他们两⼈每周都要花31个⼩时在课外。在这种情况下，当我们看到这样的信息时，我们的⼤脑会利⽤两类信息：诊断信息和⾮诊断信息。诊断信息是与正在进⾏的评估相关的信息。
Nondiagnostic is information that is irrelevant or inconquential to that valuation. And when both categories of information are mixed, dilution occurs. The very fact that Tom has a brother and two sisters or plays pool every two months dilutes the diagnostic information, or more importantly, dilutes the value and weight of that diagnostic information, namely that he studies 31 hours a week outside of class.
⾮诊断性信息是与估价⽆关或⽆关紧要的信息。当这两类信息混合在⼀起时，就会发⽣稀释。汤姆有⼀个哥哥和两个妹妹，或者每两个⽉玩⼀次台球，这⼀事实稀释了诊断信息，或者更重要的是，稀释了诊断信息的价值和权重，即他每周在课外学习31⼩时。
The most robust psychological explanation for this is one of averaging. In this model, we take in information, and tho information are afforded a weighted score. And our minds do not add tho pieces of information, but rather average tho pieces of information.
对此最有⼒的⼼理学解释是平均法。在这个模型中，我们接受信息，这些信息被赋予⼀个加权分数。我们的⼤脑不会把这些信息加起来，⽽是把这些信息平均化。
So when you introduce irrelevant or even weak arguments, tho weak arguments, if you will, reduce the weight of your overall argument. A few years ago, I landed in Philadelphia one August evening for a conference.凋零的反义词
所以，当你引⼊不相关的，甚⾄是较弱的论点时，那些较弱的论点，如果你愿意的话，会减少你整个论点的分量。⼏年
所以，当你引⼊不相关的，甚⾄是较弱的论点时，那些较弱的论点，如果你愿意的话，会减少你整个论点的分量。⼏年前，⼀个⼋⽉的晚上，我来到费城参加⼀个会议。
Having just gotten off a transatlantic flight, I checked into my hotel room, put my feet up and decided to distract my jet lag with some TV. An ad caught my attention. The ad was an ad for a pharmaceutical drug.
刚从⼀架横跨⼤西洋的航班上下来，我住进了我的酒店房间，抬起脚，决定⽤电视来分散时差的注意⼒。⼀则⼴告引起了我的注意。这则⼴告是⼀种药品的⼴告。
Now if you're the lect few who've not had the pleasure of witnessing the ads, the typical architecture of the ads is you might e a happy couple prancing through their garden, reveling in the joy that they got a full night's sleep with the aid of the sleep drug.
现在，如果你是少数没有幸⽬睹这些⼴告的⼈，这些⼴告的典型结构是，你可能会看到⼀对幸福的夫妇在花园⾥蹦蹦跳跳，陶醉于他们在睡眠药物的帮助下睡了⼀整晚的喜悦。
Becau of FDA regulations, the last few conds of this one-minute ad needs to be devoted to the side effects of that drug. And what you'll typically hear is a hurried voice-over that blurts out "Side effects include heart attack, stroke, blah, blah, blah," and will end with something like "itchy feet."
由于FDA的规定，这⼀分钟⼴告的最后⼏秒钟需要专门讨论药物的副作⽤。⽽你通常会听到的是⼀个急促的声⾳，脱⼝⽽出“副作⽤包括⼼脏病发作，中风，诸如此类”，并会以“脚痒”之类的东西结束。
Guess what "itchy feet" does to people's risk asssment of "heart attack" and "stroke"? It dilutes it. Imagine for a moment an alternate commercial that says "This drug cures your sleep problems, side effects are heart attack and stroke." Stop. Now all of a sudden you're thinking, "I don't mind staying up all night."我和姑妈
猜猜“痒脚”对⼈们对“⼼脏病”和“中风”的风险评估有什么影响？它稀释了它。想象⼀下另⼀个⼴告，上⾯写着“这种药能治疗你的睡眠问题，副作⽤是⼼脏病和中风。”停下来。现在突然你在想，“我不介意整晚熬夜。”
Turns out going to sleep is important, but so is waking up. Let me give you a sample from our rearch. So this ad that I witnesd esntially triggered a rearch project with my PhD student, Hemant, over the next two years. And in one of the studies, we prented participants an actual print ad that appeared in a magazine.
原来睡觉很重要，但起床也很重要。让我给你⼀个我们研究的样本。所以我看到的这则⼴告在接下来的两年⾥引发了我的博⼠⽣赫曼特的⼀个研究项⽬。在其中⼀项研究中，我们给参与者展⽰了⼀个刊登在杂志上的平⾯⼴告。
[Soothing rest for mind and body.] You'll notice the last line is devoted to the side effects of this drug. For half of the participants, we showed the ad in its entirety, which included both major side effects as well as minor side effects. [⾝⼼舒畅]你会注意到最后⼀⾏是关于这种药的副作⽤的。对于⼀半的参与者，我们展⽰了整个⼴告，包括主要副作⽤和次要副作⽤。
To the other half of the participants, we showed the same ad with one small modification: we extract
ed just four words out of the a of text. Specifically, we extracted the minor side effects. And then both ts of participants rated that drug.
对于另⼀半的参与者，我们展⽰了同⼀个⼴告，只是做了⼀个⼩⼩的修改：我们从浩如烟海的⽂本中提取了四个单词。具体来说，我们提取了轻微的副作⽤。然后两组参与者都对该药物进⾏评级。
What we find is that individuals who were expod to both the major side effects as well as the minor side effects rated the drug's overall verity to be significantly lower than tho who were only expod to the major side effects. Furthermore, they also showed greater attraction towards consuming this drug.
我们发现，那些同时暴露于主要副作⽤和次要副作⽤的个体对药物的总体严重程度的评价，明显低于那些只暴露于主要副作⽤的个体。此外，他们也表现出更⼤的吸引⼒，消费这种药物。
In a follow-up study, we even find that individuals are willing to pay more to buy the drug which they were expod to that had both major side effects as well as minor side effects, compared to just major side effects alone. So it turns out
that had both major side effects as well as minor side effects, compared to just major side effects alo
关于下雪的歌ne. So it turns out pharmaceutical ads, by listing both major side effects as well as minor side effects, paradoxically dilute participants' and potential consumers' overall risk asssment of that drug.
在⼀项后续研究中，我们甚⾄发现，与仅仅有严重副作⽤的药物相⽐，个⼈愿意花更多的钱购买他们接触过的既有严重副作⽤⼜有轻微副作⽤的药物。因此，药品⼴告通过列出主要副作⽤和次要副作⽤，⽭盾地稀释了参与者和潜在消费者对该药物的总体风险评估。
Going beyond shopping expeditions, going beyond the evaluation of the scholastic aptitude of others, and beyond evaluating risk in our environment, what this body of rearch tells us is that in the world of communicating for the purpos of influence, quality trumps quantity.
志愿者活动方案超越了购物考察，超越了对他⼈学术能⼒的评估，超越了对我们环境中风险的评估，这⼀研究机构告诉我们的是，在为了影响⼒⽽交流的世界⾥，质量胜过数量。
有关春的诗By increasing the number of arguments, you do not strengthen your ca, but rather you actively weaken it. Put another way, you cannot increa the quality of an argument by simply increasing the quantity of your argument. The next time you want to speak up in a meeting, speak in favor of a government legislation that you're deeply passionate about,
通过增加论据的数量，你并没有加强你的论点，⽽是积极地削弱它。换句话说，你不能仅仅通过增加论点的数量来提⾼论点的质量。下⼀次你想在会议上发⾔，⽀持⼀项你⾮常热衷的政府⽴法，
or simply want to help a friend e the world through a different lens, it is important to note that the delivery of your message is every bit as important as its content. Stick to your strong arguments, becau your arguments don't add up in the minds of the receiver, they average out.
或者只是想帮助⼀个朋友从另⼀个⾓度看世界，重要的是要注意，你信息的传达和内容⼀样重要。坚持你强有⼒的论点，因为你的论点在接受者的头脑中没有加起来，它们是平均的。
Thank you.
⾮常感谢。
黄鱼的做法
