TED演講：人類可以透過科技手段找到真愛嗎？

演講者：Helen Fisher

演說題目：請相信人類能透過科技找尋真愛

I was recently traveling in the Highlandsof New Guinea， and I was talking with a man who had three wives。 I asked him，“How many wives would you like to have？” And there was this longpause， and I thought to myself， “Is he going to say five？ Is he going tosay 10？ Is he going to say 25？” And he leaned towards me and he whispered，“None。”

最近，我正在新幾內亞高地旅行我訪談了一位有三個老婆的人我問他：“你想要多少個老婆？”他停頓了很長時間我就想 “他會說5個？還是10個？或許是25個呢？“” 結果他靠過來 小聲說道：“一個都不想要。”

Eighty-six percent of human societiespermit a man to have several wives： polygyny。 But in the vast majority of thesecultures， only about five or ten percent of men actually do have several wives。Having several partners can be a toothache。 In fact， co-wives can fight witheach other， sometimes they can even poison each other‘s children。 And you’vegot to have a lot of cows， a lot of goats， a lot of money， a lot of land， inorder to build a harem。

當今，86%的人類社會允許男人有好幾個妻子：一夫多妻。但在大多數這些社會中，有多個妻子的男性僅達5%~10%。有多個伴侶可是件頭疼的事。事實上，妻子們之間會產生爭執，有時甚至會毒害對方的孩子。而且你必須得有很多的牛羊大量金錢和土地，才能建立起一個妻妾成群的閨房。

We are a pair-bonding species。 Ninety-sevenpercent of mammals do not pair up to rear their young； human beings do。 I‘m notsuggesting that we’re not —— that we‘re necessarily sexually faithful to ourpartners。 I’ve looked at adultery in 42 cultures， I understand， actually， someof the genetics of it， and some of the brain circuitry of it。 It‘s very commonaround the world， but we are built to love。

我們是雙紐帶的種群。97%的哺乳動物不用成雙成對地撫育兒女，但人類卻是這樣的。我並不是建議人類在性方面無需忠誠彼此，但在研究了42種文化中的外遇行為之後，我明白了，其中有基因的原因，而有一些則是大腦回路的問題，整個世界都非常普遍，但愛是我們與生俱來的能力。

How is technology changing love？ I’m goingto say almost not at all。 I study the brain。 I and my colleagues have put over100 people into a brain scanner —— people who had just fallen happily in love，people who had just been rejected in love and people who are in love long-term。And it is possible to remain “in love” long-term。

科技改變了愛嗎？我認為沒有。我從事大腦研究，我和我的同事們對100多人進行了大腦掃描，包括那些剛剛陷入愛情的人、在愛情裡受挫的人以及長期沉浸在愛之中的人。是的，長期處於熱戀期是有可能的。

And I‘ve long agomaintained that we’ve evolved three distinctly different brain systems formating and reproduction： sex drive， feelings of intense romantic love andfeelings of deep cosmic attachment to a long-term partner。 And together， thesethree brain systems —— with many other parts of the brain —— orchestrate oursexual， our romantic and our family lives。

很早之前我就說過人類在求愛和繁殖過程中進化出了三個截然不同的大腦系統：性驅動、感受濃烈的浪漫以及對長期伴侶深層的強烈的依賴感。這三種大腦系統和大腦中的其他部分結合起來，控制著人類性、愛情以及家庭生活。

But they lie way below the cortex， waybelow the limbic system where we feel our emotions， generate our emotions。 Theylie in the most primitive parts of the brain， linked with energy， focus，craving， motivation， wanting and drive。 In this case， the drive to win life‘sgreatest prize： a mating partner。 They evolved over 4。4 million years ago amongour first ancestors， and they’re not going to change if you swipe left or righton Tinder。

但它們深藏在皮層下，在邊緣系統下，即人類感受情感發洩情緒的區域。它們位於大腦中最原始的位置，和能量、注意力、渴望度、動力、慾望及能動性相連。在這裡便是為了贏得人生最大獎的動力：一位配偶。這些大腦系統早在440萬年前就從人類最早的祖先中演化而來，而不管你怎麼在Tinder（社交軟體）上滑屏，它們都不會發生變化。

There‘s no question that technology ischanging the way we court： emailing， texting， emojis to express your emotions，sexting， “liking” a photograph， selfies 。。。 We’re seeing new rulesand taboos for how to court。 But， you know —— is this actually dramaticallychanging love？ What about the late 1940s， when the automobile became verypopular and we suddenly had rolling bedrooms？

可以肯定的一點是科技正在改變人類的求愛方式。電子郵件、簡訊、表達情感的符號、色情簡訊、給照片或自拍點贊。。。 關於如何求愛有了新的規則和禁忌，但是，這真的徹底改變了愛嗎？來看看上個世紀40年代，那時候汽車剛大行其道，頓時人們便有了“可移動臥室”。

How about the introduction of the birthcontrol pill？ Unchained from the great threat of pregnancy and social ruin，women could finally express their primitive and primal sexuality。

再來看看引進避孕藥的時代，因為意外懷孕而導致人生從此慘淡的日子一去不復返。女性終於可以釋放她們最原始的性本能。

Even dating sites are not changing love。I‘m Chief Scientific Advisor to Match。com， I’ve been it for 11 years。 I keeptelling them and they agree with me， that these are not dating sites， they areintroducing sites。

就連徵婚網站的出現都沒有改變愛。我在Match。com作首席科學顧問已經11年了，我一直宣導，而工作人員也認同我的意見。即這並不是一個徵婚網站，這是個介紹網站。

When you sit down in a bar， in a coffee house， on a parkbench， your ancient brain snaps into action like a sleeping cat awakened， andyou smile and laugh and listen and parade the way our ancestors did 100，000years ago。 We can give you various people —— all the dating sites can —— butthe only real algorithm is your own human brain。 Technology is not going tochange that。

當你走進酒吧、咖啡館或坐在公園的長椅時，你的大腦會立即開始反應，就像一隻沉睡的貓被喚醒一樣。你開始微笑，大笑，試著傾聽，用那些早在10萬年前我們的祖先就使用的方式來炫耀。我們可以提供各式各樣的物件，所有的徵婚網站都可以，但唯一真實的演算法卻是你的大腦，科技改變不了這一點。

Technology is also not going to change whoyou choose to love。 I study the biology of personality， and I‘ve come tobelieve that we’ve evolved four very broad styles of thinking and behaving，linked with the dopamine， serotonin， testosterone and estrogen systems。

同樣它也改變不了你的擇偶物件。我研究生物心理學，我開始相信人類已經進化出了四個廣義的思考及行為方式，和多巴胺、血清素、睪丸激素和雌激素系統相關聯。

So Icreated a questionnaire directly from brain science to measure the degree towhich you express the traits —— the constellation of traits —— linked with eachof these four brain systems。 I then put that questionnaire on various datingsites in 40 countries。 Fourteen million or more people have now taken thequestionnaire， and I‘ve been able to watch who’s naturally drawn to whom。

於是，基於腦科學原理，我設計了一份問卷用來衡量人們表達特徵的程度——各種特徵——與這四種大腦系統的關聯性在40個國家的各種徵婚網站上刊登了這份問卷。目前，已有1400多萬人參與了問卷調查，我有幸可以觀察那些天生相互吸引的人。

And as it turns out， those who were veryexpressive of the dopamine system tend to be curious， creative， spontaneous，energetic —— I would imagine there‘s an awful lot of people like that in thisroom —— they’re drawn to people like themselves。 Curious， creative people needpeople like themselves。 People who are very expressive of the serotonin systemtend to be traditional， conventional， they follow the rules， they respectauthority， they tend to be religious —— religiosity is in the serotonin system—— and traditional people go for traditional people。 In that way， similarityattracts。

結果是那些多巴胺系統反應活躍的人更有好奇心，富有創意，自然率真，且精力充沛。我想現場在座肯定有很多人屬於這一型別，他們通常被同類人所吸引。好奇且有創意的人需要和同類在一起。那些血清素系統反應活躍的人往往更加傳統，遵循慣例與規則，尊重權威 他們通常篤信宗教 —宗教信仰正屬於血清素系統——傳統派自然找傳統派的人 如此一來，是同類相吸。

In the other two cases， opposites attract。 People very expressive ofthe testosterone system tend to be analytical， logical， direct， decisive， andthey go for their opposite： they go for somebody who‘s high estrogen， somebodywho’s got very good verbal skills and people skills， who‘s very intuitive andwho’s very nurturing and emotionally expressive。 We have natural patterns ofmate choice。 Modern technology is not going to change who we choose to love。

而其他兩種情況則完全相反，對立性才有吸引力。睪丸激素系統反應活躍的人通常善於分析、邏輯思維強、直接、果斷，而他們尋找的是和他們對立的人，那些雌激素高的人，他們語言能力很強、善於處理人際關係、憑直覺行事且善於照顧他人，且直抒胸懷。人類擇偶有自然模式，現代技術不會改變我們選擇的物件。

But technology is producing one moderntrend that I find particularly important。 It‘s associated with the concept ofparadox of choice。 For millions of years， we lived in little hunting andgathering groups。 You didn’t have the opportunity to choose between 1，000people on a dating site。

但科技正在製造一種當代潮流。我認為它尤為重要。它和選擇悖論這一概念相關千萬年來，人類都生活在小型狩獵及採集社會，那時的人沒有機會在社交網站上千裡挑一選擇物件。

In fact， I‘ve been studying this recently， and Iactually think there’s some sort of sweet spot in the brain； I don‘t know whatit is， but apparently， from reading a lot of the data， we can embrace aboutfive to nine alternatives， and after that， you get into what academics call“cognitive overload，” and you don’t choose any。

事實上，從我最近對此的研究來看，我認為大腦中有某種“最佳狀態點” 。雖然我並不知道在哪兒，但從大量資料來看人類只能接受大概5~9個選項。在此之後，會變成某些學者稱的“認知超載” 。結果是不再做出選擇。

So I‘ve come to think that due to thiscognitive overload， we’re ushering in a new form of courtship that I call“slow love。” I arrived at this during my work with Match。com。 Everyyear for the last six years， we‘ve done a study called “Singles inAmerica。” We don’t poll the Match population， we poll the Americanpopulation。 We use 5，000-plus people， a representative sample of Americansbased on the US census。於是，我想正是由於這種認

知超載我們引進了一種新型求愛方式，我稱其為“慢慢愛”。這些都是我在 Match。com工作時總結出來的。過去六年中，我們做了一項研究名為“美國單身” 我們民調的物件不僅針對Match。com的會員，而是整個美國人口。我們調查了5000多人，這是基於美國統計局的代表性樣本。

We‘ve got data now on over 30，000 people，and every single year， I see some of the same patterns。 Every single year whenI ask the question， over 50 percent of people have had a one-night stand —— notnecessarily last year， but in their lives —— 50 percent have had a friends withbenefits during the course of their lives， and over 50 percent have lived witha person long-term before marrying。

目前已收集了超過3萬人的資料。每年我都看到同樣的模式，向他們提問的結果是超過50%的人有一夜情的經歷，並不一定是上一年，而是他們一生中，在他們的有生之年50%的人曾經和朋友上過床。超過50%的人在婚前有過長期同居的經歷。

Americans think that this is reckless。 Ihave doubted that for a long time； the patterns are too strong。 There’s got tobe some Darwinian explanation —— Not that many people are crazy。

美國人認為這是輕率的行為，但我一直不這麼認為，畢竟這種模式太普遍，肯定有某種類似於達爾文生物進化的地方。總不會是那麼多人都喪失了理智？

And I stumbled， then， on a statistic thatreally came home to me。 It was a very interesting academic article in which Ifound that 67 percent of singles in America today who are living long-term withsomebody， have not yet married because they are terrified of divorce。 They‘reterrified of the social， legal， emotional， economic consequences of divorce。 So I came to realize that I don’t think this is recklessness； I think it‘scaution。

結果我發現了一個震驚的資料，一篇極其有趣的學術文章發現67%的處於長期同居的美國未婚人士，之所以還未結婚是因為擔心離婚。他們擔心離婚後面對的社會、法律、情感以及經濟後果。於是 我認識到這並不是輕率的行為，而是謹慎。

Today’s singles want to know every single thing about a partner beforethey wed。 You learn a lot between the sheets， not only about how somebody makeslove， but whether they‘re kind， whether they can listen and at my age， whetherthey’ve got a sense of humor。

如今，人們在結婚之前想對其伴侶的每一個細節瞭如指掌，同居能讓人瞭解到許多事情，不僅是對方的床上功夫，而是對方是否善良、是否善於傾聽以及到了我這個年紀所關心的，就是對方是否有幽默感。

And in an age where we have too manychoices， we have very little fear of pregnancy and disease and we‘ve got nofeeling of shame for sex before marriage， I think people are taking their timeto love。

當今社會人們有很多選擇，很少為懷孕或疾病感到擔憂。且對婚前性行為毫無愧疚感，在這種情況下人們選擇愛得慢一些。

And actually， what’s happening is， whatwe‘re seeing is a real expansion of the precommitment stage before you tie theknot。 Where marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship， now it’s thefinale。 But the human brain ——

而真實情況是這其實是婚前準備階段的實際延伸。從前，婚姻意味著一段感情的開始。而現在它意味著尾聲，但人類大腦

The human brain always triumphs， andindeed， in the United States today， 86 percent of Americans will marry by age49。 And even in cultures around the world where they‘re not marrying as often，they are settling down eventually with a long-term partner。

人類大腦總是勝出者。如今，在美國86%的美國人將在49歲結婚，即便在世界上結婚率不高的文化裡，最終他們也會和長期伴侶安定下來。

So it began to occur to me： during this longextension of the precommitment stage， if you can get rid of bad relationshipsbefore you marry， maybe we’re going to see more happy marriages。 So I did astudy of 1，100 married people in America —— not on Match。com， of course —— andI asked them a lot of questions。 But one of the questions was， “Would youre-marry the person you‘re currently married to？” And 81 percent said，“Yes。”

於是我突然想到：在這個長期婚前準備期，如果你在婚前擺脫了一段糟糕的情感關係或許就會有更多美滿的婚姻。於是，我研究了美國1100位已婚人士，當然不是在Match。com上。我問了很多問題其中一個是如果再給你一次機會，你還會選擇和現在的伴侶結婚嗎？81%的人說，會！

In fact， the greatest change in modernromance and family life is not technology。 It’s not even slow love。 It‘s actuallywomen piling into the job market in cultures around the world。 For millions ofyears， our ancestors lived in little hunting and gathering groups。 Womencommuted to work to gather their fruits and vegetables。 They came home with 60to 80 percent of the evening meal。 The double-income family was the rule。 Andwomen were regarded as just as economically， socially and sexually powerful asmen。

事實上當今的情感和家庭生活最大的變化不是科技造成的，甚至也不是“慢慢愛”的結果。而是在全世界範圍內大量女性進入職場的結果。幾百萬年以來我們的祖先都生活在小型捕獵採集社會，女性忙於採摘，餐桌上60%~80%的食物是由她們帶回來的。雙份收入家庭是一般法則，女性不論在經濟、社會還是性方面都和男性具有同等的地位。

Then the environment changed some 10，000years ago， we began to settle down on the farm and both men and women becameobliged， really， to marry the right person， from the right background， from theright religion and from the right kin and social and political connections。Men’s jobs became more important： they had to move the rocks， fell the trees，plow the land。 They brought the produce to local markets， and came home withthe equivalent of money。

然而大約1萬年前社會發生了變化，人類開始以農耕為主，男女似乎有義務尋找合適的人結婚。對方必須有匹配的背景、宗教信仰、相稱的家族、社會及政治關聯。男性的工作變得更為重要，他們必須搬運大石、砍樹、耕地，他們把農產品帶到市場上賣換回來同等的錢。

Along with this， we see a rise of a host ofbeliefs： the belief of virginity at marriage， arranged marriages —— strictlyarranged marriages —— the belief that the man is the head of the household，that the wife‘s place is in the home and most important， honor thy husband， and’til death do us part。 These are gone。 They are going， and in many places， theyare gone。

不僅如此，各種信仰開始傳播。堅信婚前必須保持處女身包辦婚姻（嚴格安排的婚姻）、堅信男性是一家之主女性就應該待在家裡更重要的一點。女性一生一世必須尊夫所有這些都是過去式了，有些地方仍有這些現象，但大部分地區這些現象都不復存在了。

We are right now in a marriage revolution。We are shedding 10，000 years of our farming tradition and moving forwardtowards egalitarian relationships between the sexes —— something I regard ashighly compatible with the ancient human spirit。

我們正處於一場婚姻變革之中，我們摒棄了1萬年前的農業傳統，朝著兩性平等的方向發展。我認為這和遠古人類的精神相契合。

I‘m not a Pollyanna； there’s a great dealto cry about。 I‘ve studied divorce in 80 cultures， I’ve studied， as I say，adultery in many —— there‘s a whole pile of problems。 As William Butler Yeats，the poet， once said， “Love is the crooked thing。” I would add，“Nobody gets out alive。”

我不是一個盲目樂觀的人，還有很多事情值得擔憂。我研究了80種文化裡的離婚行為、出軌行為還有許許多多的問題。正如詩人威廉·巴特勒·葉芝所說“愛情是個狡猾的傢伙”我會再加一句，“沒人能活著出來”。

We all have problems。 But in fact， I thinkthe poet Randall Jarrell really sums it up best。 He said， “The dark，uneasy world of family life —— where the greatest can fail， and the humblestsucceed。”

每個人都有困擾，但我認為詩人蘭德爾·賈雷爾總結的最好他說：在枯燥繁瑣的家庭生活中強者不顯其智，弱者反而取勝。

But I will leave you with this： love andattachment will prevail， technology cannot change it。 And I will conclude bysaying any understanding of human relationships must take into account one themost powerful determinants of human behavior： the unquenchable， adaptable andprimordial human drive to love。

但我想說的是：愛和相互依賴會戰勝一切，科技無法改變這一點。總結下來，便是任何對人類關係的詮釋必須考慮到人類行為，最強大的決定因素是那難以抑制的極具適應性的最原始的愛的動力。

Kelly Stoetzel： Thank you so much for that，Helen。 As you know， there’s another speaker here with us that works in yoursame field。 She comes at it from a different perspective。 Esther Perel is apsychotherapist who works with couples。 You study data， Esther studies thestories the couples tell her when they come to her for help。 Let‘s have herjoin us on the stage。 Esther？

Kelly Stoetzel：感謝您的演講。海倫，今天還有另一位演講者，她和您在相同的領域裡做研究，不過是從不同的視角來分析問題。誒斯特·佩雷斯從事情侶心理治療師的工作，您研究資料，誒斯特研究那些向她尋求幫助的情侶們所訴說的故事。現在請她上臺吧，有請誒斯特。

So Esther， when you were watching Helen’stalk， was there any part of it that resonated with you through the lens of yourown work that you‘d like to comment on？

誒斯特當您觀看海倫演講的時候是否有和您所做的工作產生共鳴的地方？您可以和我們說說嘛？

Esther Perel： It’s interesting， because onthe one hand， the need for love is ubiquitous and universal。 But the way welove —— the meaning we make out of it —— the rules that govern our relationships，I think， are changing fundamentally。

Esther Perel：讓我覺得有意思的地方是，一方面，人們對愛的需求無所不在，無所不及但人類愛的方式愛與被愛背後的意義，以及控制雙方關係的規則正在發生根本性的改變。

We come from a model that， until now， wasprimarily regulated around duty and obligation， the needs of the collective andloyalty。 And we have shifted it to a model of free choice and individualrights， and self-fulfillment and happiness。 And so， that was the first thing Ithought， that the need doesn‘t change， but the context and the way we regulatethese relationships changes a lot。

直到最近我們一直處於一種模式，即主要由責任和義務集體和忠誠主義支配的模式。而現在，我們轉向了另一種模式即追崇自主選擇、個人權利、自我實現與幸福的模式，這是我腦子裡冒出的第一個想法，愛的需求沒有改變，但大環境和人們處理情感關係的方式發生了很大的變化。

On the paradox of choice —— you know， onthe one hand we relish the novelty and the playfulness， I think， to be able tohave so many options。 And at the same time， as you talk about this cognitiveoverload， I see many， many people who 。。。 who dread the uncertainty andself-doubt that comes with this massa of choice， creating a case of“FOMO” and then leading us —— FOMO， fear of missed opportunity， orfear of missing out —— it’s like， “How do I know I have found ‘the one’ ——the right one？”

關於選擇悖論我認為一方面我們追求多重選擇給我們帶來的新鮮感和趣味性，同時，就像你提到的“認知負荷”我看到許多人對堆砌成堆的選項所帶來的不確定性和不自信而感到擔憂，從而製造出某種“害怕錯過的恐懼症”於是便引領我們—— “FOMO”，表現為害怕機會流失，就好比“我怎麼知道這個人就是我命中註定的那一個呢？”

So we‘ve created what I call this thing of“stable ambiguity。” Stable ambiguity is when you are too afraid to bealone but also not really willing to engage in intimacy-building。 It’s a set oftactics that kind of prolong the uncertainty of a relationship but also theuncertainty of the breakup。

與人建立親密關係。這是一種策略，不僅會使這段關係的不確定性期延長，還能拖延分手的不確定性。

So， here on the internet you have three major ones。One is icing and simmering， which are great stalling tactics that offer a kindof holding pattern that emphasizes the undefined nature of a relationship butat the same time gives you enough of a comforting consistency and enough freedomof the undefined boundaries。

網路上將其分為三個階段：一是冰凍期和溫吞水，這是很好的拖延戰術，它使人們處於某種停滯狀態。在這種狀態下，強調情感關係中的不界定屬性但同時能讓你維持這段關係以及自由做出選擇的空間。

Yeah？

對嗎？

And then comes ghosting。 And ghosting is，basically， you disappear from this massa of texts on the spot， and you don‘thave to deal with the pain that you inflict on another， because you’re makingit invisible even to yourself。

接下來就到了“幽靈階段”。“幽靈階段”基本上是指你突然不再做出選擇、不再應對你給對方帶來的痛苦，因為你自己都掩耳盜鈴。

說的對嗎？

So I was thinking —— these words came upfor me as I was listening to you， like how a vocabulary also creates a reality，and at the same time， that‘s my question to you： Do you think when the contextchanges， it still means that the nature of love remains the same？

這種現象我稱為“穩定的模稜兩可”。指的是你害怕被剩下來孤獨終老，但又不願開啟心扉。當我在聽你演講的時候我想到了這些，正如語言重現現實一樣。與此同時，我也有個問題要問你：當環境發生變化時，你認為愛的本質還是一樣的嗎？

You study the brain and I study people’srelationships and stories， so I think it‘s everything you say， plus。 But Idon’t always know the degree to which a changing context 。。。 Does it at somepoint begin to change —— If the meaning changes， does it change the need， or isthe need clear of the entire context？

你研究大腦，而我研究情侶關係。我認可你的觀點，但我不明白的是環境改變的程度——它是從某一點開始改變的呢？如果意義變了，需求是否也會改變呢？或需求本身不受整個大環境影響？

HF： Wow！ Well ——

海倫：哇！

Well， I‘ve got three points here， right？First of all， to your first one： there’s no question that we‘ve changed， thatwe now want a person to love， and for thousands of years， we had to marry theright person from the right background and right kin connection。 And in fact，in my studies of 5，000 people every year， I ask them， “What are youlooking for？” And every single year， over 97 percent say ——

海倫：好的，我分為三點來說首先，回答你第一個問題：人類變了，這一點毋庸置疑現在人們依然渴望愛情。而幾千年來人們都遵從必須和來自匹配的背景和關聯的人結婚，每年我對5000人進行調研，我問他們：“你想找什麼樣的人？”每年超過97%的人會說。

海倫：是的。

EP： The list grows ——

誒斯特：清單越來越長了吧？

HF： Well， no。 The basic thing is over 97percent of people want somebody that respects them， somebody they can trust andconfide in， somebody who makes them laugh， somebody who makes enough time forthem and somebody who they find physically attractive。 That never changes。 Andthere’s certainly —— you know， there‘s two parts ——

海倫：呃，沒有。超過97%的人都表示想找尊重自己、值得信任的、能交心的 、能逗你笑的、花時間陪自己的以及長相看著順眼的人。這幾點從未改變過，大概有兩部分——

EP： But you know how I call that？ That’snot what people used to say —— HF： That‘s exactly right。

誒斯特：你知道我怎麼定義這種現象嗎？過去人們並不是這樣的擇偶標準。

EP： They said they wanted somebody withwhom they have companionship， economic support， children。 We went from aproduction economy to a service economy。We did it in the larger culture， and we’redoing it in marriage。

誒斯特：過去人們會說他們想找能夠與自己作伴、提供經濟支援、喜愛孩子的人，我們從生產經濟轉變為服務經濟。在其他文化中我們已經這麼做了，現在我們把它帶到婚姻中。

HF： Right， no question about it。 But it‘sinteresting， the millennials actually want to be very good parents， whereas thegeneration above them wants to have a very fine marriage but is not as focusedon being a good parent。 You see all of these nuances。

海倫：是的，這一點毫無疑問但有趣的是，如今千禧一代非常渴望成為合格的家長，而他們的上一代人希望有個美滿的婚姻，但卻不向他們一樣專注於成為合格的家長，你可以看到這些細微的差別。

There’s two basic parts of personality：there‘s your culture —— everything you grew up to do and believe and say —— andthere’s your temperament。 Basically， what I‘ve been talking about is yourtemperament。 And that temperament is certainly going to change with changingtimes and changing beliefs。

人格有兩個基本構成部分：你的文化、成長過程信仰和言行以及性格，我討論的基本上都是性格。而性格一定會隨著時間和信仰的改變而改變。

And in terms of the paradox of choice，there’s no question about it that this is a pickle。 There were millions ofyears where you found that sweet boy at the other side of the water hole， andyou went for it。

就選擇悖論而言這確實是個兩難的境地。千百萬年以來，如果人們在河邊看到心動的物件，便會去爭取。

EP： Yes， but you ——

誒斯特：是的，但是——

HF： I do want to say one more thing。 Thebottom line is， in hunting and gathering societies， they tended to have two orthree partners during the course of their lives。 They weren‘t square！ And I’mnot suggesting that we do， but the bottom line is， we‘ve always hadalternatives。 Mankind is always —— in fact， the brain is well-built to what wecall “equilibrate，” to try and decide： Do I come， do I stay？ Do I go，do I stay？ What are the opportunities here？ How do I handle this there？ And soI think we’re seeing another play-out of that now。

海倫：還有一件事歸根結底，在狩獵及採集社會中，人們一生中通常有2到3個伴侶他們並不是兩兩相對的。我當然不是建議我們也這麼做，但重要的是我們始終可以做出其他選擇。人類一直如此，實際上，人類大腦的構造是平衡對稱的，去試探或下決心：來或走？去或留？留下來有什麼樣的機遇？怎麼處理這件事？我想現在上演的正是大腦決策的另一齣戲。

KS： Well， thank you both so much。 I thinkyou‘re going to have a million dinner partners for tonight！

KS：非常感謝兩位。我想你今晚要和很多人共進晚餐了。

Thank you， thank you。

謝謝！