快乐从何而来

译自 Paul Bloom 的 TED 演讲《The origins of pleasure》

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.

今天我想谈一谈我们生活中的快乐。首先我来讲一个特别令人讨厌的人的故事。他就是 Hermann Goering（赫尔曼·戈林）。戈林是二战期间希特勒预定的第二号继承人。就像希特勒一样，戈林也认为自己是一个艺术品收藏家。二战期间，他踏遍欧洲，通过偷窃、掠夺以及偶尔出钱买的方式收集各种画作。他最喜欢的是Vermeer的作品。希特勒有他的两幅作品，当时戈林一个也没有。所以他找到一个叫做Han van Meegeren艺术品经纪人，最终花了相当于现在1000万美元的价格从他手中买到了一幅精美的Vermeer的作品。它一直都是戈林最喜欢的艺术品。

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." (Laughter) 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.

二战结束之后，戈林被逮捕，在纽伦堡接受审判，最终被判处死刑。然后盟军搜查了它的搜查了他的收藏品，找到了许多珍贵的画作，然后追寻那些将这些稀世珍宝出售给戈林的人。一段时间之后，荷兰警方在阿姆斯特丹逮捕了Van Meegeren。Van Meegeren 被以叛国罪起诉，这项罪名最高可能判处死刑。在被关押了六个星期之后，Meegeren坦白了。但他并不并不承认自己叛国。他说：“我并没有把一件杰作卖给纳粹，那幅画是我自己临摹的，我是一个伪造者。”没有人相信他的话。然后他就说：“我会证明给你们看的，给我那一张帆布和一些颜料，我来画一张，比卖给那个恶心的纳粹那幅更好。我还需要酒精和吗啡，只有这样我才能工作。”人们给他拿来了这些东西，他真的划出了一幅漂亮的的Vermeer的画。所以对他的叛国罪的起诉就取消了，而换成了造假，这一罪名判刑轻得多。最终他被判一年的监禁，最后像一个荷兰的英雄一样死去。关于Meegeren还有很多故事可以讲，但是现在我们来说说戈林，就是屏幕上的这个人，他在纽伦堡接受审判。

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." (Laughter) 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.

无论怎么讲，戈林都是一个讨厌的人。甚至对纳粹党人来说，格林也是一个非常讨厌的人。审问他的美国审讯者说他是一个看起来正常的精神病。但是当你看到他得知自己最喜爱的艺术品实际上是一个假货时的反应时，你可能会同情他。据他的传记作家描述“他看起来就像是第一次发现原来这个世界上真的有魔鬼。”那之后不久他就自杀了。他发现他的画作都是假的。他们看起来完全一样，但是他们的出处不同，他们就是不一样的艺术品。

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.

震撼的不仅仅是戈林。一旦Meegeren在接受审判，他就不停地讲。他甚至开始夸耀他的那些杰作，它们被认为是其他艺术家作品，但实际上都是Meegeren自己画的。其中的一幅叫做《The supper at Emmaus》，这幅画被认为是Vermeer最优秀的代表作，人们从世界各地赶来欣赏它，但是Vermeer最伟大的作品实际上是一个仿品。它不是那一幅而是另外的一幅画。得知这一消息之后，它变得毫无价值，被从博物馆中清除出去。

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.

为什么这一点很重要？对一个心理学家来说——为什么出身如此重要？为什么我们如此看重某样东西是怎么来的？可能很多人会给出这样一个答案。社会学家Veblen和Wolfe认为我们看重出身，是因为我们都是势力的人，我们看重的实际是地位。此外，如果某人想要炫耀他的财富或者权力，拥有一幅原作比一幅赝品强得多，毕竟原作的数量远远少于赝品的。我不否认有这方面的原因，但是今天我想提醒你们这背后还有其他的因素在起作用。我说的是，从某种程度来说，人类是天生的本质论者，我们不是单纯地反映我们看到的、听到的、感觉到的东西。我们的反映会受到各种观念的影响，例如他们的真正面目，他们的出身，他们的材质，他们的隐藏属性等等。不仅我们思考某物的时候是这样的，我们因某物而产生的行动也是如此。

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，快乐是复杂的，无论是艺术这样更高级的愉悦还是表面上单纯的快乐，都受到我们对隐藏的事物的本质的观念的影响。拿事物来说。你会吃这个吗？（屏幕上出现了一块肉）好的回答是“不一定，这是什么啊？”。如果是猪肉而不是牛肉的话，一部分人会想要吃它。如果是牛肉的话，也有一部分人会吃。但如果这是一块老鼠肉或者是人肉的话，几乎就没人想要吃了。有些人只有在这时一块色彩奇怪的豆腐的时候才会吃它。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.

更有趣的是你认为它是什么会很大程度上影响对你来说它的味道。针对一群孩子做的一个实验证明了这一点。如果你不仅是想要孩子们吃胡萝卜和和喝牛奶，更想使他们从其中获得快乐，该怎么做——想象他们更好吃？很简单，你告诉他们，这些食物是从麦当劳买来的。孩子们认为麦当劳的食物更好吃，这会让他们真的感觉这些食物更好吃。

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.

你怎样使称人们真的欣赏红酒？非常简单：把它装入昂贵的酒瓶之中。现在有数十甚至上百项研究表明，如果你相信自己喝的红酒价格昂贵，那么对你来说它的味道会更好。最近人们用神经扭转来证明了这一点。研究人员让参加实验的人进入一个功能磁共振成像扫描器中，当他们躺在那儿的时候，通过一个管子吸一口红酒。在他们面前的屏幕上显示这些红酒的信息。当然，所有人喝的都是一样的。但是，如果你相信自己喝的红酒价格很贵，大脑中有关快乐和回报的区域会活跃起来，就像点亮了圣诞树那样。这不单纯是你说这样更愉悦，你说你更喜欢它，你确实拥有了不一样的感受。

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. (Laughter) 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.

或者拿性来说。这些事我在研究中用到的一些刺激物。（屏幕上出现了一个帅哥和一个美女）如果你简单地把图片给人们看，他们会说这两个人非常有吸引力。但是你认为他们有多么吸引人，或者说在性或者浪漫方面让你感动的程度，这很大程度上取决于你认为你看到的这些人是谁。你大概认为左面图片中是个男人，右面的是个女人。如果说这个想法被证明是错的，可能结果会有很大的不同。（观众笑）如果事后证明图片中的人比人们认为的年老或者年轻的多，人们的看法也会改变。如果你发现你渴望的人是伪装过的你的子女或者你的父母，你会有不同的想法。知道某个人是自己的亲属往往会彻底消灭性冲动。也许你从关于快乐的心理学研究中听到的最振奋人心的发现是，如果想要看起来好，除了外貌之外还有其他的方法。如果你喜欢一个人，那么对你来说他或她会更好看。这就是为什么幸福婚姻中的夫妇会认为他们的配偶比其他人眼中的他们漂亮得多。

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.

关于这一点，有一个特别好的例子，就是卡普格拉妄想综合症，它是一种神经系统的疾病。患上这种疾病的人会产生一种特殊的妄想，他们认为他们在这个世界上最爱的那些人都被某种完美的复制品替换掉了。所以这种疾病尝尝会引发悲剧，卡普格拉妄想综合症的患者会杀掉他们那些他们最爱的人，因为他们认为这些人都是伪装的。但是，至少在一种情况下卡氏妄想症的患者的结局是幸福的。这是1931年的报道：“研究人员向我们描述一位女性，她抱怨自己被赋予的太少了，而且他的爱人性能力也不行。”但是这些发生在她患上卡氏综合症之前，患病以后，“她高兴地告诉我们说她有了一个新的爱人，他富有、精力充沛、英俊而且有贵族气质。”当然，他们两个实际上是同一个人，但是她用不同的方式观察他。

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. (Laughter) 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.

第三个例子是关于消费产品的。你喜欢某一个产品原因可能是因为它有用。这个鞋可以穿在脚上，这个高尔夫球棍可以打高尔夫球，这个口香糖对你来说没有任何用处。但是，他们三个，根据它们的来历，都有超过他们用处的价值。这个高尔夫球棍是属于 John F. Kennedy 的，拍卖的价格是75万美元。事实上，有一个非常繁荣的市场，专门麦麦那些深受喜爱的人吃剩下的食物。这双鞋可能是所有东西里最值钱的。根据一条尚未经证实额报道，一位沙特的富豪为这双鞋出价1000万美元。它就是那双几年前在关于伊拉克的新闻发布会上扔向布什的那一双。

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.

这种对某个对象的向往不只是对名人用过的东西。对于我们来说，大部分人都有一些东西，也许是你的结婚戒指，也可能是你小孩穿过的鞋子，在我们的生命中具有不可替代的位置，从这个角度来说，它们的价值就是来自于他们的经历。如果这样的东西丢了，你可能就再也找不回来了。虽然你能找到一些看起来一模一样的，但是再也不可能是同一个东西了。我和同事 George Newman 和 Gil Diesendruck 一起，研究了到底是什么因素或者什么样的经历决定了你喜欢的东西对你而言的价值。在一个试验中，我们要求受试者说出一个他们崇拜的人的名字，要求是一个活着的人。

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."

有一个答案是 George Clooney ，然后我们问被试者，“你愿意花多少钱买 George Clooney 的毛衣？”。答案还是一个很可观的数值，超过一件全新毛衣的价格，也比二手的他们不那么喜欢的人毛衣更贵。我们也对其他物品进行了类似的问答。我们制定了不同的限制和条件。比如，我们告诉其中的一些人，“你可以买下这件毛衣，但是你不能告诉任何人你拥有了它，而且你也不能把它转卖出去”。这么做就会使毛衣的价值下降，这表明这个是我们看重它的一个原因。但是真正有重大影响的是你告诉他们，“你可以把它转卖出去，你可以自吹自擂，但是交到你的手里之前，它会被彻底的清洗一遍”。这会导致价值的猛跌。就像我妻子说的，“你洗掉了 Clooney 的虱子”。

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.

让我们回到艺术品。我喜欢Chagall，喜欢他的作品。如果你会后想给我买一些东西，你可以给我买一个 Chagall 的作品。但即使我分不清真假，我也绝不希望得到一幅仿品。这不是因为，或者说不仅仅是因为我是一个势利的人，或者我喜欢炫耀自己有一幅真迹。而是因为我想要的是一个有历史的东西。对于艺术品来说，来历真的很重要。著名的哲学家 Denis Dutton 在他的著作《The Art Instinct》中举例说，“艺术品德价值来自于人们对于创造它的过程做出的想象”。这就解释了真品和赝品之间的差别。它们也许看起来一模一样，但是他们来龙去脉完全不同。原作是典型的艺术创作的产品， 而赝品不是。我认为这样能够解释人们在艺术品味上的不同。

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.

这是一幅 Jackson Pollock 的作品。现场谁喜欢他？好的，其实谁喜欢或不喜欢他对我来说都不重要。我不想指出谁对谁错。我只是想对人们的直觉做出一个经验性的判断，相比于那些不喜欢 Jackson 的人，喜欢他的人更强项与认为这些作品的创作难度很高，需要大量的时间、经历以及创造力。我特意拿 Jackson Pollock 举例，是因为有一个年轻的美国艺术家，他的画和 Jackson 的风格非常接近。她的画价值成千上万美元，当然，很大程度上是因为她非常非常年轻。

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.

这是 Marla Olmstead ，她在3岁的时候完成了她的大部分作品。有趣的是，她的家人犯了一个巨大的错误，邀请电视节目《60分钟》的摄制组到她家纪录她是怎样做画的。之后他们报道说是她的爸爸在训练她。当这个节目播出后，她的作品马上变得一文不值，本质上，都是一样的作品，但是他的“历史”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. (Violin music) 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.

之前我一直在讲视觉艺术，接下来我想讲两个音乐的例子。这个人是 Joshua Bell ，它是一个非常著名的小提琴手。华盛顿邮报的记者想要让他参加一个非常大胆的实验。他们想要知道，如果人们不知道他们在听 Joshua Bell在弹奏，人们还会喜欢他和他的音乐吗？他们让 Joshua 带着他上百万美元的小提琴来到华盛顿地铁站，站在一个角落里演奏，目的是看一看他能赚多少钱。这是当时的一个片段。他站在那演奏了45分钟，赚了32美元。不算太坏，但也不能说好。显然想要真正地欣赏他的音乐，你就必须知道你听到的是他演奏的。实际上他还赚了20美元，但是他没有算。因为这位女士来了，就是片尾的那一位。她几个星期之前刚在国会图书馆听过他的演奏。所以她很震惊他会在站在一个地铁站的角落里演奏。所以她懂了恻隐之心，她从钱包里拿了20块钱递给了他。

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. (Laughter) 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关于 John Cage的现代派作品“4'33”。和你们了解的一样，在这部作品中，钢琴家坐在一个长凳上，打开了钢琴，然后他就坐在那什么没干，一直呆了4分33秒，制造了4分33秒的寂静。人们对此有不同的观点。但我想指出，你能够从 iTunes 上花钱购买它，花费99美元你就能够聆听这段与众不同的安静。

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.

说了这么多关于愉悦的事情，我想说，我说的这些原理同样适用于痛苦。你认为你正在经历什么，你对某物本质的认识，会决定你对疼痛的感觉。Kurt Gray 和 Dan Wegner 做了一个有趣的实验。他们把在哈佛毕业生的身上连接上电击器，然后对他们进行一系列的点击，总共5次。实验分两组，他们告诉第一组的人，电击的开关由另一个屋子里的某人控制，但他们不知道按下开关会电击受试者。他们没有恶意，对他们来说只是按了下按钮。第一次点击被记录为非常疼痛。第二次时痛苦减轻了，因为你习惯它了，之后，第三次，第四次，第五次，痛苦逐渐降低。在另外一组，受试者被告知，另一个屋子中的人是知情的，他们知道按下电钮会产生电击。第一次电击就像是地狱，第二次同样痛苦，之后的每一次都令他们非常难受。如果你知道某人故意伤害你，那么你会感觉更痛苦。

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，在某些特定的情况下，痛苦可以转换成快乐。人类有这样特别有趣的能力，我们经常会寻求低程度的可以控制的痛苦并从中获得快乐，比如吃辣的辣椒胡椒和坐云霄飞车。对此诗人 John Milton 的总结非常精彩，他写道：“大脑是它自己的领地，在其中，它能把地狱变成天堂，把天堂变成地狱。”

And I'll end with that. Thank you.