心理學家，著名的學者和臨床諮詢與治療專家，積極心理學的創始人之一， 主要從事習得性無助、抑鬱、樂觀主義、悲觀主義等方面的研究。曾獲美國應用與預防心理學會的榮譽獎章，由於他在精神病理學方面的研究獲得該學會的終身成就獎。
演講者：Martin E.P. Seligman 馬丁·塞利格曼
演講題目：The new era of positive psychology
When I was President of the American Psychological Association, they tried to media-train me. And an encounter I had with CNN summarizes what I'm going to be talking about today, which is the eleventh reason to be optimistic. The editor of Discover told us 10 of them; I'm going to give you the eleventh.
我在美國心理學會擔任主席的時候，有人想訓練我如何應對媒體。我在CNN做節目的一次經歷，正好可以概括今天我要談論的話題，就是人們應該積極樂觀的第11個理由。Discover的編輯告訴了我們前10個理由，我要來告訴你們第11個。
So they came to me, CNN, and they said, "Professor Seligman -- would you tell us about the state of psychology today? We'd like to interview you about that." And I said, "Great." And she said, "But this is CNN, so you only get a sound bite." I said, "Well, how many words do I get?" And she said, "Well, one."
當時CNN的人找到我，對我說：賽利格曼教授，您能不能跟我們談談心理學發展的現狀？我們想採訪你在這方面的看法。我便說：好啊。她說：可是這是CNN，所以你只能很精練地講一小段話。我便說：那麼我究竟能講幾個字？她說：一個字。
And the cameras rolled, and she said, "Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Good."
隨後攝像機開拍，她說：塞利格曼教授，心理學發展的現狀如何? 好。
"Cut! Cut. That won't do. We'd really better give you a longer sound bite." "How many words do I get this time?" "Well, you get two." "Doctor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good."
停，停，這樣不行，我們應該讓你講長一點，那麼這次我能講幾個字呢？我看，你講兩個字吧，塞利格曼博士，心理學發展的現狀如何？「不好」。
"Look, Doctor Seligman, we can see you're really not comfortable in this medium. We'd better give you a real sound bite. This time you can have three words. Professor Seligman, what is the state of psychology today?" "Not good enough." That's what I'm going to be talking about.
聽我說，塞利格曼博士，我們知道你在這種媒體場合不太適應，我們決定給足你時間，這次你可以說三個字，塞利格曼教授，心理學發展的現狀如何？不夠好，這也就是我今天想談論的話題。
I want to say why psychology was good, why it was not good, and how it may become, in the next 10 years, good enough. And by parallel summary, I want to say the same thing about technology, about entertainment and design, because I think the issues are very similar.
我想談談為什麼說心理學既好，又不好，以及心理學在未來10年裡如何可以變得足夠好。同時我也想談一談技術、娛樂和設計，因為這些領域發展狀況和心理學相似。
So, why was psychology good? Well, for more than 60 years, psychology worked within the disease model. Ten years ago, when I was on an airplane and I introduced myself to my seatmate, and told them what I did, they'd move away from me, because, quite rightly, they were saying psychology is about finding what's wrong with you. Spot the loony. And now, when I tell people what I do, they move toward me.
那麼，為什麼說心理學的現狀好呢？因為在過去60多年裡，心理學建立起了一個疾病模型，10年前，坐飛機的時候，我向鄰座自我介紹，告訴他們我的職業，他們會挪得離我遠一點。因為他們認為，也有理由認為，心理學的目標就是找出你哪裡有問題，找出誰是瘋子。而現在如果我告訴人們我的職業，他們會想湊近我。
What was good about psychology -- about the $30 billion investment NIMH made, about working in the disease model, about what you mean by psychology -- is that, 60 years ago, none of the disorders were treatable; it was entirely smoke and mirrors. And now, 14 of the disorders are treatable, two of them actually curable.
心理學好在哪裡？美國國家精神衛生研究所投資300億美元的效果在哪裡？建立疾病模型的效果在哪裡？心理學自身的意義好在哪裡？就在於60年前所有失調都沒辦法治療，人們毫無辦法。而現在其中有14種都可以治療，其中2種還可以治癒。
And the other thing that happened is that a science developed, a science of mental illness. We found out we could take fuzzy concepts like depression, alcoholism, and measure them with rigor; that we could create a classification of the mental illnesses; that we could understand the causality of the mental illnesses. We could look across time at the same people -- people, for example, who were genetically vulnerable to schizophrenia -- and ask what the contribution of mothering, of genetics are, and we could isolate third variables by doing experiments on the mental illnesses.
另一點是一門科學發展起來了，一門研究精神疾病的科學。我們發現我們可以對抑鬱、酗酒這些模糊的概念，進行精確的測量，我們可以對精神疾病進行分類，我們可以了解精神疾病的前因後果，我們可以在很長的時間跨度裡觀察一些人，比如在基因上對精神分裂症易感的人群。我們想知道後天照顧和先天基因在這其中扮演的角色，我們可以通過對這個精神疾病的實驗，分離出導致精神疾病的變量。
And best of all, we were able, in the last 50 years, to invent drug treatments and psychological treatments. And then we were able to test them rigorously, in random-assignment, placebo-controlled designs, throw out the things that didn't work, keep the things that actively did.
最棒的一點是，在過去50年裡，我們發明了藥物療法和心理療法。並且我們可以通過安慰劑對照組實驗，對這些療法進行精確的測試，把沒用的去掉，留下有用的。
The conclusion of that is, psychology and psychiatry of the last 60 years can actually claim that we can make miserable people less miserable. And I think that's terrific. I'm proud of it. But what was not good, the consequences of that, were three things.
結論是：在過去的60年裡，心理學和精神病學研究，真的可以為痛苦的人減少痛苦。我覺得這非常棒，我為此感到自豪。但這也帶來不好的東西，例如以下三個後果。
The first was moral; that psychologists and psychiatrists became victimologists, pathologizers; that our view of human nature was that if you were in trouble, bricks fell on you. And we forgot that people made choices and decisions. We forgot responsibility. That was the first cost.
第一個是道德上的。心理學家和精神病學家把人當作受害者研究、把人病態化，我們一度認為人在疾病面前無能為力。我們忘了人們是會做選擇、做決定的，我們忘記了人是可以承擔責任的，這是第一個代價。
The second cost was that we forgot about you people. We forgot about improving normal lives. We forgot about a mission to make relatively untroubled people happier, more fulfilled, more productive. And "genius," "high-talent," became a dirty word. No one works on that.
第二根損失是我們忘記了你們這些人。我們忘記了要去提高正常人的生活，我們忘了使正常人更快樂、更充實、更有成就。天才、高智商變成了貶義詞，沒有人去研究天才了。
And the third problem about the disease model is, in our rush to do something about people in trouble, in our rush to do something about repairing damage, it never occurred to us to develop interventions to make people happier -- positive interventions.
疾病模型的第三個問題，是我們急於幫助得病的人。我們匆忙地去修補損傷，我們從沒想過要發展幹預措施、積極的幹預措施，讓人們更加快樂。
So that was not good. And so that's what led people like Nancy Etcoff, Dan Gilbert, Mike Csikszentmihalyi and myself to work in something I call, "positive psychology," which has three aims. The first is that psychology should be just as concerned with human strength as it is with weakness. It should be just as concerned with building strength as with repairing damage. It should be interested in the best things in life. And it should be just as concerned with making the lives of normal people fulfilling, and with genius, with nurturing high talent.
這是不好的。正因為如此，南茜•艾特柯夫、丹•吉爾伯特、邁克•齊克森米哈裡還有我本人，會去研究我稱作「積極心理學」的這個領域。積極心理學有三個目標，第一是心理學不僅要關注人的弱點，還要關注人的優勢，不僅要致力於修復損傷，還要致力於給人力量。應該對生活中最好的東西感興趣，應該在關注病人的同時，努力讓正常人以及「天才」們的生活更加美好。
So in the last 10 years and the hope for the future, we've seen the beginnings of a science of positive psychology, a science of what makes life worth living. It turns out that we can measure different forms of happiness. And any of you, for free, can go to that website -- [www.authentichappiness.org] and take the entire panoply of tests of happiness.
我們希望積極心理學在未來能像過去10年這樣，作為一門科學逐漸發展起來。這門科學研究什麼讓生活變得值得一過，研究發現我們可以測量不同形式的幸福，你們中的每一位都可以免費去那個網站authentichappiness.org，去做那裡各種各樣的幸福感測試。
You can ask, how do you stack up for positive emotion, for meaning, for flow, against literally tens of thousands of other people? We created the opposite of the diagnostic manual of the insanities: a classification of the strengths and virtues that looks at the sex ratio, how they're defined, how to diagnose them, what builds them and what gets in their way. We found that we could discover the causation of the positive states, the relationship between left hemispheric activity and right hemispheric activity, as a cause of happiness.
你們可以看看自己在積極情緒、幸福感、「心流」方面的得分，並和其他數萬人進行比較，我們創造了和精神障礙診斷與統計相反的標準。我們對人的優勢和優點進行性別上的分類，研究它們的定義、診斷方式，它們的構造、它們面臨的障礙，我們發現我們可以找到積極狀態的來源，存在於左半腦活動，和右半腦活動之間的聯繫。
I've spent my life working on extremely miserable people, and I've asked the question: How do extremely miserable people differ from the rest of you? And starting about six years ago, we asked about extremely happy people. How do they differ from the rest of us?
我一輩子都在幫助特別痛苦的人。我一直想知道，特別痛苦的人和其他人有什麼區別？大約六年前，我們轉而問，特別幸福的人和其他人有什麼區別？
It turns out there's one way, very surprising -- they're not more religious, they're not in better shape, they don't have more money, they're not better looking, they don't have more good events and fewer bad events. The one way in which they differ: they're extremely social. They don't sit in seminars on Saturday morning. They don't spend time alone. Each of them is in a romantic relationship and each has a rich repertoire of friends.
結果是只有一個區別，他們不比別人更篤信宗教，身材不比別人好，他們不比別人富裕，也不比別人好看。他們的生活中並不是成功比挫折多，他們唯一的區別是非常善於和人相處，他們不喜歡在星期六早晨去上研討班（笑聲）他們很少一個人待著，他們每個人都沉浸在浪漫的愛情裡，每個人都有很多朋友。
But watch out here -- this is merely correlational data, not causal, and it's about happiness in the first, "Hollywood" sense, I'm going to talk about, happiness of ebullience and giggling and good cheer. And I'm going to suggest to you that's not nearly enough, in just a moment. We found we could begin to look at interventions over the centuries, from the Buddha to Tony Robbins.
但是要小心，剛才這些數據只是互相關聯，並不是因果關係。而且他們的幸福都是好萊塢式的幸福，即開懷大笑式的幸福。我待會就會告訴你們，這是不夠的，從佛祖到託尼•羅賓斯（美國潛能激勵大師）。
About 120 interventions have been proposed that allegedly make people happy. And we find that we've been able to manualize many of them, and we actually carry out random-assignment efficacy and effectiveness studies. That is, which ones actually make people lastingly happier? In a couple of minutes, I'll tell you about some of those results.
人們在過去一個世紀裡，從各個角度已經提出過大約120種，據說能讓人更加幸福的幹預措施，我們已經可以操作其中的許多種，我們可以進行隨機指派，研究這些幹預措施的有效性。也就是說，究竟哪些措施真的可以讓人們持久提升幸福感？過一會兒我會告訴你們這些研究的結果。
But the upshot of this is that the mission I want psychology to have, in addition to its mission of curing the mentally ill, and in addition to its mission of making miserable people less miserable, is, can psychology actually make people happier? And to ask that question -- "happy" is not a word I use very much -- we've had to break it down into what I think is askable about "happy." And I believe there are three different -- I call them "different" because different interventions build them, it's possible to have one rather than the other -- three different happy lives.
在治療有心理疾病的人之外，在為痛苦的人減少痛苦之外，心理學還應該，讓人更加幸福。我並不經常使用幸福這個詞，但是要問這個問題，我們得把幸福這個概念分解一下。我認為有三種不同的幸福人生，之所以說它們不同，是因為他們來自於不同的幹預措施，人們可以擁有其中一種而不擁有另一種。
The first happy life is the pleasant life. This is a life in which you have as much positive emotion as you possibly can, and the skills to amplify it. The second is a life of engagement: a life in your work, your parenting, your love, your leisure; time stops for you. That's what Aristotle was talking about. And third, the meaningful life. I want to say a little bit about each of those lives and what we know about them.
第一種幸福生活是快樂的人生，在這樣的生活裡你的積極情感多得不能再多了，你增強這些感情的技能也多的不能再多了。第二種是參與的人生，你努力地工作、帶孩子、戀愛、休閒，時間為你停止，亞里斯多德談過的就是這種人生。第三種是有意義的人生，我想簡單談一談這三種人生，以及我們的研究情況。
The first life is the pleasant life, and it's simply, as best we can find it, it's having as many of the pleasures as you can, as much positive emotion as you can, and learning the skills -- savoring, mindfulness -- that amplify them, that stretch them over time and space. But the pleasant life has three drawbacks, and it's why positive psychology is not happy-ology, and why it doesn't end here.
第一種人生是愉快的人生，你所擁有的快樂多得不能再多了，你的積極情緒多得不能再多了。你學習快樂的技巧，在時間和空間裡放大快樂，但是快樂的人生有三個缺點，這也就是積極心理學區別於「快樂心理學」的地方。
The first drawback is, it turns out the pleasant life, your experience of positive emotion, is about 50 percent heritable, and, in fact, not very modifiable. So the different tricks that Matthieu and I and others know about increasing the amount of positive emotion in your life are 15 to 20 percent tricks, getting more of it. Second is that positive emotion habituates. It habituates rapidly, indeed. It's all like French vanilla ice cream: the first taste is 100 percent; by the time you're down to the sixth taste, it's gone. And, as I said, it's not particularly malleable.
第一個缺點是，你所體會到的積極情緒有50%是遺傳的，這種情緒不容易更改。所以馬修和我還有其他人，所使用的讓人們有更多積極情緒的方法，有15%到20%都是在遺傳範圍內讓人們發掘潛質的小把戲。第二個缺點是人們很快就能適應積極情緒，就像法式香草冰淇凌，第一口是100%的美味，但到了第六口，就沒有味道了。第三點，正如我說過的，積極情緒很難改變。
And this leads to the second life. I have to tell you about my friend Len, to talk about why positive psychology is more than positive emotion, more than building pleasure. In two of the three great arenas of life, by the time Len was 30, Len was enormously successful. The first arena was work.
下面就要談一談第二種人生了。我得跟你們說說我的朋友蘭，讓你們知道積極心理學不僅是關於積極情緒，不僅是要創造快樂。還沒到30歲，蘭就在生活三個方面中的兩個取得了巨大成功，第一個是工作方面。
By the time he was 20, he was an options trader. By the time he was 25, he was a multimillionaire and the head of an options trading company. Second, in play, he's a national champion bridge player. But in the third great arena of life, love, Len is an abysmal failure. And the reason he was, was that Len is a cold fish.
不到20歲他就是個期權交易家，不到25歲他就成了百萬富翁，同時是一家期權交易公司的經理。第二個是休閒方面：他是全國橋牌比賽冠軍，但是在第三個方面，愛情，蘭卻徹底失敗，原因就在於他對人非常冷淡（像一條冷冰冰的魚）。
Len is an introvert. American women said to Len, when he dated them, "You're no fun. You don't have positive emotion. Get lost." And Len was wealthy enough to be able to afford a Park Avenue psychoanalyst, who for five years tried to find the sexual trauma that had somehow locked positive emotion inside of him. But it turned out there wasn't any sexual trauma. It turned out that -- Len grew up in Long Island and he played football and watched football, and played bridge. Len is in the bottom five percent of what we call positive affectivities.
蘭是個內向的人，他和美國女子約會的時候，她們說，你不風趣，你沒有積極情緒，滾開。幸好蘭有足夠的錢請教最好的心理分析學家，這位心理分析學家花了五年的時間想找到，把蘭內心積極情緒封閉起來的性創傷，但其實什麼也找不到。事實上，蘭在紐約長島長大，他玩橄欖球，看橄欖球比賽，還玩橋牌，蘭屬於積極情感最差的5%人群。
The question is: Is Len unhappy? And I want to say, not. Contrary to what psychology told us about the bottom 50 percent of the human race in positive affectivity, I think Len is one of the happiest people I know. He's not consigned to the hell of unhappiness, and that's because Len, like most of you, is enormously capable of flow. When he walks onto the floor of the American Exchange at 9:30 in the morning, time stops for him. And it stops till the closing bell. When the first card is played till 10 days later, when the tournament is over, time stops for Len.
問題是：蘭不幸福嗎？我不覺得他不幸福，和心理學家關於人類積極情感較差的50%人群。相關研究成果恰恰相反，我覺得蘭是我認識的最幸福的人之一，他並沒有特別的不幸福。這是因為蘭和你們中的大多數一樣，非常善於「心流」，當他在早上9：30走進美國交易所的時候，時間仿佛停止了，直到交易所關門，當他開始打橋牌的時候，時間仿佛停止了，直到10天後比賽結束。
And this is indeed what Mike Csikszentmihalyi has been talking about, about flow. And it's distinct from pleasure in a very important way: pleasure has raw feel -- you know it's happening; it's thought and feeling. But what Mike told you yesterday -- during flow ... you can't feel anything. You're one with the music. Time stops. You have intense concentration. And this is indeed the characteristic of what we think of as the good life. And we think there's a recipe for it, and it's knowing what your highest strengths are -- again, there's a valid test of what your five highest strengths are -- and then re-crafting your life to use them as much as you possibly can. Re-crafting your work, your love, your play, your friendship, your parenting.
這也就是邁克·齊克森米哈裡所說的「心流」，這和普通的快樂很不一樣。快樂的時候，你能感覺到自己的快樂，但是邁克昨天在「心流」裡告訴你的事情，你現在就感覺不到了，你全身心投入音樂中，時間停止了，你非常集中注意力。我們認為這是美好生活的特徵，我們還認為達到這樣的生活有訣竅，那就是了解你最大的優勢。對了，有一個挺準的測試，測你最大的五個優勢，然後儘量多地用這些優勢重新塑造你的生活，你的工作，你的愛情，你的休閒，你的友誼，你和孩子相處的方式。
Just one example. One person I worked with was a bagger at Genuardi's. Hated the job. She's working her way through college. Her highest strength was social intelligence. So she re-crafted bagging to make the encounter with her the social highlight of every customer's day. Now, obviously she failed. But what she did was to take her highest strengths, and re-craft work to use them as much as possible. What you get out of that is not smiley-ness. You don't look like Debbie Reynolds. You don't giggle a lot. What you get is more absorption.
舉一個例子：我曾經研究過一個在商店裡工作的裝袋工。她很不喜歡這份工作，她同時在讀大學，她最大的優勢是善於交際，所以她很努力地，讓每個客人見到她就一整天心情好，很顯然她失敗了，但是她隨後用在工作上儘量多地重新利用她最大的優勢。你從中得到的並不是微笑，你看起來不像黛比·雷諾斯，你不經常咯咯地笑，你得到的是更加投入的精神。
So, that's the second path. The first path, positive emotion; the second path is eudaemonian flow; and the third path is meaning. This is the most venerable of the happinesses, traditionally. And meaning, in this view, consists of -- very parallel to eudaemonia -- it consists of knowing what your highest strengths are, and using them to belong to and in the service of something larger than you are.
這就是那第二條路，第一條路是積極情緒，第二條路是「幸福之流」，第三條路是意義，這在傳統意義上是幸福最令人肅然起敬的部分。正如第二條路，這裡所說的意義，是指你要知道你最大的優勢在哪裡，並利用它們。你要在比自我更大的事業裡找到歸屬感。
I mentioned that for all three kinds of lives -- the pleasant life, the good life, the meaningful life -- people are now hard at work on the question: Are there things that lastingly change those lives? And the answer seems to be yes. And I'll just give you some samples of it. It's being done in a rigorous manner. It's being done in the same way that we test drugs to see what really works. So we do random-assignment, placebo-controlled, long-term studies of different interventions.
我剛才提到了三種生活，快樂的生活，參與的生活，有意義的生活，人們很想知道，真的有東西可以持久地改變我們的生活嗎？答案看來是肯定的。我來舉幾個例子，我們做很嚴密的測試，就像我們測驗哪些藥物有效一樣。我們隨機分配，有些人分在服用安慰劑的控制組，我們用各種幹預措施做長期研究，想找到有效果的幹預措施。
Just to sample the kind of interventions that we find have an effect: when we teach people about the pleasant life, how to have more pleasure in your life, one of your assignments is to take the mindfulness skills, the savoring skills, and you're assigned to design a beautiful day. Next Saturday, set a day aside, design yourself a beautiful day, and use savoring and mindfulness to enhance those pleasures. And we can show in that way that the pleasant life is enhanced.
我們向被測試者介紹什麼是快樂的生活，如何在生活中找到更多快樂，你的任務之一是利用你的細心和風趣，來設計美好的一天，把下個星期六空出來，給自己設計美好的一天，用風趣和細心增強這些快樂。我們可以證明，如此快樂感真的提升了。
Gratitude visit. I want you all to do this with me now, if you would. Close your eyes. I'd like you to remember someone who did something enormously important that changed your life in a good direction, and who you never properly thanked. The person has to be alive. Now, OK, you can open your eyes. I hope all of you have such a person. Your assignment, when you're learning the gratitude visit, is to write a 300-word testimonial to that person, call them on the phone in Phoenix, ask if you can visit, don't tell them why. Show up at their door, you read the testimonial -- everyone weeps when this happens. And what happens is, when we test people one week later, a month later, three months later, they're both happier and less depressed.
另一項幹預措施是感恩訪問，現在如果你願意，請跟著我做。閉上眼睛，我要你記起一個曾經做過很重要的事情，一個往好的方向改變了你一生，而你從來沒有正式感謝過的人，必須是個還健在的人。現在，好的，睜開眼睛，我希望你們每個人都找到了這麼一個人，你在完成感恩訪問這個任務的時候，得給那個人寫一封300字的感謝信，給他們打電話，跟他們說你要拜訪他們，不要說為什麼，登門就行了。然後你讀感謝信給他們聽——每個人在這種情況下都會掉眼淚，一個星期之後，一個月之後，三個月之後，我們再進行測試，發現這些人變得更開心、不那麼抑鬱了。
Another example is a strengths date, in which we get couples to identify their highest strengths on the strengths test, and then to design an evening in which they both use their strengths. We find this is a strengthener of relationships. And fun versus philanthropy. It's so heartening to be in a group like this, in which so many of you have turned your lives to philanthropy. Well, my undergraduates and the people I work with haven't discovered this, so we actually have people do something altruistic and do something fun, and contrast it. And what you find is when you do something fun, it has a square wave walk set. When you do something philanthropic to help another person, it lasts and it lasts. So those are examples of positive interventions.
另一個例子是優勢約會，我們找來一對對伴侶，讓他們在優勢測試中明確自己最大的優勢。然後我們為他們設計一個雙方都能利用自己優勢的夜晚，我們發現這樣可以增進他們的關係，「趣味對慈善」也是一種方法。這種方法對在座各位不大適用，因為你們中的很多人已經投身慈善了。不過，我教的本科生和我的測試對象還不了解這其中的奧妙，於是我讓他們做些幫助他人的事，再做些有趣的事，進行比較。你會發現，當你做有趣的事的時候，快樂很快消退，當你慈善地幫助別人的時候，快樂的感覺長久不退，這些就是積極幹預的例子。
So the next to last thing I want to say is: we're interested in how much life satisfaction people have. This is really what you're about. And that's our target variable. And we ask the question as a function of the three different lives, how much life satisfaction do you get? So we ask -- and we've done this in 15 replications, involving thousands of people: To what extent does the pursuit of pleasure, the pursuit of positive emotion, the pleasant life, the pursuit of engagement, time stopping for you, and the pursuit of meaning contribute to life satisfaction?
我想說的倒數第二件事情是，我們很感興趣人們有多滿意自己的人生，這是我們要尋找的目標變量。我們把這個問題當作三種不同人生的相互作用，你有多滿意你的人生？我們在15個副本裡研究了幾千個人，我們想知道，對快樂的追求，對積極情緒、快樂生活的追求，對參與的追求、對忘記時間的狀態的追求，對人生意義的追求，在何種程度上影響我們對人生的滿意度？
And our results surprised us; they were backward of what we thought. It turns out the pursuit of pleasure has almost no contribution to life satisfaction. The pursuit of meaning is the strongest. The pursuit of engagement is also very strong. Where pleasure matters is if you have both engagement and you have meaning, then pleasure's the whipped cream and the cherry. Which is to say, the full life -- the sum is greater than the parts, if you've got all three. Conversely, if you have none of the three, the empty life, the sum is less than the parts.
結果出人意料，研究顯示，對快樂的追求基本上不影響我們對人生的滿意度，對意義的追求影響最大，對參與的追求影響也很大。如果你已經到達了參與和有意義的狀態，那麼快樂就可以給你的人生錦上添花，也就是說如果三者都有。完整的人生超過各個部分的總和，相反地，如果這三者你都沒有，生活就比各個部分的總和還要空虛。
And what we're asking now is: Does the very same relationship -- physical health, morbidity, how long you live and productivity -- follow the same relationship? That is, in a corporation, is productivity a function of positive emotion, engagement and meaning? Is health a function of positive engagement, of pleasure, and of meaning in life? And there is reason to think the answer to both of those may well be yes.
我們現在要問的是，身體健康、患病率，壽命、生產力等，是否也存在同樣的現象？比如在一家公司裡，生產力是積極情緒、奮鬥和意義的共同作用嗎？健康是積極情緒、快樂，和意義的共同作用嗎？我們有理由相信兩者的答案可能都是肯定的。
So, Chris said that the last speaker had a chance to try to integrate what he heard, and so this was amazing for me. I've never been in a gathering like this. I've never seen speakers stretch beyond themselves so much, which was one of the remarkable things. But I found that the problems of psychology seemed to be parallel to the problems of technology, entertainment and design in the following way: we all know that technology, entertainment and design have been and can be used for destructive purposes.
克裡斯說最後一個發言的人有機會把他之前聽到的綜合起來，這對我來說太棒了。我從沒參加過像這樣的聚會，我從沒見過演講者發揮得這麼厲害，這是非常值得稱讚的。但是我發現心理學面臨的問題很像，科技、娛樂和設計所面臨的問題。比如，我們都知道科技、娛樂和設計都可以用作毀滅性目的，它們也確實這樣做過。
We also know that technology, entertainment and design can be used to relieve misery. And by the way, the distinction between relieving misery and building happiness is extremely important. I thought, when I first became a therapist 30 years ago, that if I was good enough to make someone not depressed, not anxious, not angry, that I'd make them happy. And I never found that; I found the best you could ever do was to get to zero; that they were empty.
我們也知道科技、娛樂和設計，都可以用來減少痛苦。順便說一下，減少痛苦和創造幸福，之間是有區別的，而且區別很重要，30年前我剛開始從醫的時候，我想如果我有能力給人減少抑鬱，減少焦慮，減少憤怒，那我就讓他們快樂了。事實並非如此，最佳療效只能是讓病人歸零，但他們內心空虛。
And it turns out the skills of happiness, the skills of the pleasant life, the skills of engagement, the skills of meaning, are different from the skills of relieving misery. And so, the parallel thing holds with technology, entertainment and design, I believe. That is, it is possible for these three drivers of our world to increase happiness, to increase positive emotion. And that's typically how they've been used. But once you fractionate happiness the way I do -- not just positive emotion, that's not nearly enough -- there's flow in life, and there's meaning in life. As Laura Lee told us, design and, I believe, entertainment and technology, can be used to increase meaning engagement in life as well.
其實快樂的技能、快樂生活的技能，參與的技能、找到意義的技能，和減少痛苦的技能是不一樣的。我相信，同樣的情況，也存在於科技、娛樂和設計上，也就是說，這三種動力都能用來增加，人們的幸福感和積極情緒，人們也確實在這樣使用它們，但是如果你像我一樣分解快樂，你會發現快樂不只是積極情緒——那是不夠的——快樂還包括生活的心流以及人生的意義。正如蘿拉莉告訴我們的，設計、娛樂和科技，也可以用來增強人生的意義和參與。
So in conclusion, the eleventh reason for optimism, in addition to the space elevator, is that I think with technology, entertainment and design, we can actually increase the amount of tonnage of human happiness on the planet. And if technology can, in the next decade or two, increase the pleasant life, the good life and the meaningful life, it will be good enough. If entertainment can be diverted to also increase positive emotion, meaning eudaemonia, it will be good enough. And if design can increase positive emotion, eudaemonia, and flow and meaning, what we're all doing together will become good enough.
所以，總而言之，在「太空升降機」的概念以外，樂觀向上的第11個理由，就是我們可以利用科技、娛樂和設計，增加這個星球上，人類幸福的分量。如果科技能在接下來的十年或者二十年裡增加人們快樂的生活，參與的生活，和有意義的生活，就足夠好了，如果娛樂也可以增加積極情緒，人生意義，以及幸福感，就足夠好了。如果設計也可以增加積極情緒，幸福感，心流，還有人生意義，那我們共同做的這一切就會足夠好了，謝謝大家。
Remark：一切權益歸TED所有，更多TED相關信息可至官網www.ted.com查詢！