瀏覽器版本過低，暫不支持視頻播放
中國有句古話叫「有錢能使鬼推磨」，這就造成了很多人認為「金錢是萬能的」，其實網上標題黨們最愛拿錢吸引眼球了，比如什麼1億實盤、3億豪宅等等，那你們覺得「金錢真的是萬能的嗎？」
There is an old Chinese saying that "money makes the mare to go", misleading many people into thinking that "money is everything". Clickbait writers love to use 「money」 in headlines as an eye-catching point, like 「100 million RMB firm offer」, 「300 million luxury house」, etc. Do you guys agree that "money is everything"?
就因為人總喜歡「向錢看」，所以市面上總會有這種聲音：「馬雲和比爾蓋茨退休搞慈善，不就是想要變相轉移財富不交稅嗎？他倆這麼有錢，想搞慈善還不容易？」
Just because people always like to look to the money, there will always be this kind of view saying that: "Jack Ma and Bill Gates started charity work after their retirement, simply aiming at transferring wealth without paying taxes. They're so rich that it』d be super easy for them to do charity work.」
尤其是疫情爆發時期，比爾蓋茨一直是西方勇於講出病毒真相的人之一，可以說是川建國最討厭的人之一了，所以比爾蓋茨被各種老外罵是陰謀論，罵得連比爾蓋茨自己都說「心累了」。
During the outbreak of the epidemic, Bill Gates has been one of the brave people in the West to tell the truth about the virus, and he can be said as one of the people that Trump hates most. Bill Gates was blamed for 「his conspiracy」 by foreign netizens, so much so that even Bill Gates himself said: "I feel terrible".
那麼金錢真的是萬能的嗎？有錢就能搞好慈善嗎？
Is money really everything? Is money the only key to success charity work?
這裡明確說出我的觀點：因為「金錢不是萬能的」，所以不是有錢就可以搞好慈善的。
Here's my point of view: Money talks to some extent, and it is one element of charity work.
我是小丹尼，談車說科技。偶爾跑跑題，你也別介意。本集視頻論據仍然遵循我的標準：隨你反駁。
I'm Danny. I talk about tech and cars and sometimes talk about something else, hope you don't mind. As usual, all information used in my video is authentic and first-hand. You’re welcome to disagree with my arguments.
01 錢不是萬能的
為什麼我說「金錢不是萬能的」？
Why do I state that "money is not everything"?
舉個例子你就明白了。就拿獻血這件事來說，你認為「無償獻血」的人多，還是「有償獻血」的人多呢？
I'll use an example to explain. Taking the case of blood donation, do you think more people donate blood without or with compensation?
我來公布一下答案，耶魯大學的一項實驗證明：如果把「無償獻血」改為「有償獻血」，反倒會讓獻血的人數減少37%。
Let me present the answer. An experiment by Yale University proved that changing the term "voluntary blood donation" to "compensated blood donation" would reduce the number of donors by 37%.
其實這個很好理解，那些「無償獻血」的同學會這樣想：「本來我獻血是為了獻愛心的，你卻把我這獻愛心行為搞成個商業行為？難道我這血祭才值這麼倆錢？老子不獻了，下次一定！」
This is very easy to understand. Those who donate blood for free will think: "I originally gave blood for pure charity, but you turned my donation into a commercial act? Does my blood sacrifice worth only that much? I just quit!"
估計這裡會有人反駁我了，小丹尼你說「有償獻血」的人不夠多，那是錢沒給到位。
Well, I guess some people may disagree with me here. Danny, when you claimed "there aren't many compensated blood donors", that's because the compensation is not enough.
好吧，你說得可能也對，畢竟咱聊的是公益行為而不是商業行為，況且血的買賣交易行為也不合法，那我們再換個例子：
Well, you're probably right. We're talking about public service not commercial act after all, let alone it's not legal to trade blood. So let's take another example.
咱們國人對各種旅遊景點的垃圾絕不陌生，再給大家來個測試，為了避免遊客亂扔垃圾，景區的區長立一個警示牌：扔垃圾者罰款10元！或者在門票上收取遊客10塊錢所謂的「垃圾處理費」，你認為區長這麼做，會讓遊客扔垃圾變多了，還是變少了呢？
We're familiar with the trash in the tourist attraction spots. Let's try this test first. To prevent tourists from littering, the manager may set up a warning sign saying "Littering is fined 10 yuan!" or charge tourists 10 RMB as "garbage disposal fee". Do you think the littering will increase or decrease?
這種現象大家見得太多了，但結果是什麼大家也都清楚，景區垃圾照樣是隨處可見，因為很多遊客會想：「10塊錢老子還是能交得起的，老子吃雞時是專業伏地魔，我偷偷扔你還想逮到我？」或者「老子的垃圾處理費都交了，不扔白不扔啊！」
This is quite common, and you know the result. Garbage still can be seen everywhere in the tourist attraction spots. Many tourists may think: "10 yuan is not a big deal. I’m so good at hiding in PUBG, don’t even think of catching me if I do it secretly." or "Given that I have already paid the garbage disposal fee, just litter or waste the money! "
那麼如何解決這個問題呢？我將在結尾給出答案。
So how to solve the problem? I will give the answer at the end of this video.
好吧，現在你懂我說的了吧，錢絕對不是萬能的，很多事情絕不是靠砸錢就能搞定的，根本原因是人性問題。
Well, now you should understand why I said that money is definitely not everything. Cash burn is not a solution to many problems. The fundamental problem is human nature.
02 快思考和慢思考
到底是什麼人性問題呢？這裡我們要引入一個概念「快思考」和「慢思考」，來自心理學家Keith Stanovich和Richard West首先提出：大腦中存在兩套系統進行「行為決策」，後來普林斯頓大學的教授Daniel Kahneman將理論延伸發展，稱為「快思考」和「慢思考」。
So what is the problem of human nature? Here I’m going to introduce the concept of "quick thinking" and "slow thinking", which was first introduced by the psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West: there are two "behavioral decision-making" systems in human brains. Later, Professor Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University developed the theory into "thinking fast and slow".
什麼是「快思考」和「慢思考」呢？
What are "quick thinking" and "slow thinking"?
「快思考」指的是依靠直覺和情感，不怎麼費力、幾乎無意識的狀態。比如街邊大爺的回答什麼冬梅、馬什麼梅、馬冬什麼。
"Quick thinking" refers to a state of mind that relies on intuition and emotion, which is effortless and almost unconscious. For example, a passer-by’s direct answer to the question of one’s name: …Donemei, Ma … Mei, Madong….
而「慢思考」指的是需要嚴謹的邏輯行為，費腦力，專注的狀態。比如時間管理、新年計劃、工作安排甘特圖等等。
"Slow thinking" involves rigorous logical analysis, deliberation, and focus, which can be found in time management, New Year's plan, work schedule using Gantt chart, etc.
再給你出兩個小測驗你就明白了，其實我們每個人都是有「快思考」和「慢思考」的。
Let me give you two tests to help you understand. In fact, each of us can think fast and slowly.
測試一：假如一個球拍和一個桌球總共是11元，球拍比桌球貴10元，那麼一個桌球多少錢？
Test one: A ping-pong bat and a ball cost 11 yuan in total. The bat costs 10 yuan more than the ball. How much is the ball?
我估計很多同學反應很快，立刻給出答案：「桌球1塊錢！」
I guess many of you will respond quickly and give the answer immediately: "1 yuan!"
這時你就使用了「快思考」，大家要好好審題「貴10元」，所以正確答案應該是「桌球5毛錢」，而桌球拍是10塊5毛錢，總共才是11塊錢。如果這道題你答對了，說明你使用了「慢思考」。
In this case, you used "fast thinking". Let’s review the question carefully: "The bat costs 10 yuan more than the ball", so the correct answer is "50 cents", and the bat is 10.5 yuan, totaling 11 yuan. If you answered this question correctly, you have used a method of "slow thinking".
答錯的同學也不用氣餒，說實話第一次看這問題時我也答錯了，而且這個測試有上萬名美國大學生都答錯了，其結果令人震驚，在哈佛大學、麻省理工大學和普林斯頓大學中，53%的學生給出了錯誤答案。
Don’t be discouraged if you made the wrong answer. To be honest, I also failed the test for the first time. More surprisingly, over ten thousand of American college students made the wrong answer. Even 53% of students from Harvard, MIT, and Princeton University, gave the wrong answer.
雖然我當年沒考上哈佛、麻省理工和普林斯頓大學，但我可以和他們一樣答錯問題呀，我終於找到了我和學霸們的相似之處了。
Although I didn’t get into Harvard, MIT, or Princeton University, I made the same mistake as the students there did. I finally found the similarity between me and the excellent students.
再給你們來第二個測試：如果5部機器製造5件產品需要5分鐘，那麼100部機器同時製造100件產品需要多長時間？
Now let's try the second test: If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?
目測這次答對的同學要比上一個測試多很多了，你可能會變得更加謹慎，不會再脫口而出答案「100分鐘！」
I guess much more of you can get the right answer this time. You may become more cautious and will not blurt out "100 minutes!"
恭喜你學會不搶答了，這次你使用了更多的「慢思考」，正確答案是5分鐘。
Congratulations on learning not to rush to answer. This time you are thinking more slowly. The correct answer is 5 minutes.
好吧，如果這次還有同學脫口而出「100分鐘！」 ，估計你的數學是體育老師教的，如果你現在還沒有反應過來，那只需要考慮一個類似問題：張三的媽媽生了張三，需要10個月。那麼10個張三的媽媽同時生10個張三，需要多長時間呢？答案還是10個月，而不是100個月。
Well, if there are mates still blurting out "100 minutes!", it is estimated that your math is taught by your PE teacher. If you haven't comprehended what had happened yet, you only need to think about this similar problem. John ’s mother spent 10 months to give birth to him. So how long does it take 10 mothers to give birth to 10 babies respectively at the same time? The answer is still 10 months, not 100 months.
這裡估計要有小朋友問了：「難道『慢思考』就一定比『快思考』好嗎？」
Is "slow thinking" necessarily better than "fast thinking"?
那也不一定，學開車就是一個從「慢思考」逐漸升級到「快思考」的過程。
No really, learning to drive is a gradual upgrade from "slow thinking" to "fast thinking".
學開車剛開始就是一個「慢思考」的過程，比如你需要非常專注學習如何掛擋、踩離合、踩剎車、看後視鏡等等，駕校師傅脾氣不好其實就是看你「慢思考」干著急。
Learning to drive is a "slow thinking" process at the beginning. You need to concentrate on learning how to gear, use clutch and brake, look in the rearview mirror, etc. The bad temper of the driving school teacher is actually the anxiety that arose by your "slow thinking".
當你成為了老司機，你的很多反應就會升級為「快思考」：比如看見行人，直覺就會告訴你應該踩剎車；錯道時，第一反應就是打轉向燈、看後視鏡等等，當然我說的這是老司機的理想狀況啊，反正我知道很多北京老司機的「快思考」是變道先插了再說。
When you become an experienced driver, many of your immediate reactions will become "fast thinking". For example, when you see a passerby, your instinct will lead you to brake. When changing lanes, the immediate reaction is to turn on the cornering lamp, look at the rearview mirror, and so on. Of course, this is the ideal operation for experienced drivers. Anyway, I observed that the "fast thinking" of many sophisticated Beijing drivers is to change lanes first.
好了，這下你應該搞懂「快思考」和「慢思考」的區別了，而且你也知道了有時候我們需要「快思考」，有時候需要「慢思考」。
Now you probably understand the difference between "fast thinking" and "slow thinking", and you also know that sometimes we need "fast thinking" and sometimes "slow thinking".
03 用恰當方式解決問題
估計小朋友還會問：「搞懂『快思考』和『慢思考』，除了可以回答小丹尼的腦筋急轉彎，還有什麼用呢？」
Some of you may ask that in addition to answering Danny’s brain-teasers, what is the point of "fast thinking" and "slow thinking"?
讓你們回答我的腦筋急轉彎當然不是我的目的了，更重要的是要用「快思考」的方法解決「快思考」的問題，用「慢思考」的方法解決「慢思考」的問題；你不能用「快思考」的方法解決「慢思考」的問題，也不能用「慢思考」的方法解決「快思考」的問題。
It's not my purpose to let you answer my brain-teasers. It is more important to solve the problem in the right way. That is, you cannot use the "fast thinking" method to solve the "slow thinking" method and you cannot use the "slow thinking" method to solve the "fast thinking" problem.
這順口溜說得我快喘不過氣了，畢竟不是專業相聲演員。舉個例子你就明白了。
This made me feel breathless, after all, I am not a professional comedian. I'll use examples to illustrate my point.
先說第一點，不能用「快思考」的方法，解決「慢思考」的問題。
First, you cannot use the "fast thinking" method to solve the "slow thinking" problem.
你可以簡單理解為，你不能用「刷抖音」的心態去看DannyData的視頻，因為人在「刷抖音」時的狀態往往是「快思考」，三秒鐘你不給我來個笑點，老子就給你刷過去了。但看DannyData的視頻往往需要「慢思考」，如果你帶著「刷抖音」的心態去看DannyData視頻，肯定會覺得小丹尼「廢話太多」或「抖包袱水平太差」。
This means that you can't watch DannyData's video with the same mentality when watching Tik Tok short videos, because most people are in the "fast thinking" mode when swiping Tik Tok. If you don’t give me a punchline in three seconds, I will swipe it up without hesitation. Watching DannyData often requires "slow thinking". If you watch DannyData with the same mentality as watching Tik Tok, you will definitely feel that Danny talks too much nonsense and too few punchlines.
類似的，以前我在米蘭參觀達文西博物館，展品如此精彩，充分展示了達文西的「慢思考」，我在之前文章《假如達文西來到今天，會不會成為當代賈伯斯？》裡詳細描述過，感興趣可以去翻。但可惜的是，達文西博物館非常冷清，沒什麼人進來逛，
Similarly, I visited the Da Vinci Museum in Milan before. Those brilliant exhibits fully illustrated Da Vinci's "slow thinking." I talked more details about it in my previous article, "If Da Vinci Comes Today, Will He Become a Contemporary Steve Jobs?", and you can read it if interested. Unfortunately, the Da Vinci Museum is very deserted with few people visit.
反倒是博物館旁邊的奢侈品一條街卻人山人海，可能因為大部分去米蘭的遊客，也不是為了專注和燒腦吧，而是為了放鬆和血拼。如果你抱著放鬆和血拼的心態來參觀達文西博物館，肯定會覺得達文西這些手稿和模型，遠沒有米蘭大街花裡胡哨的奢侈品過癮。
On the contrary, the luxury street next to the museum is crowded. Perhaps most tourists who visit Milan plan not to focus and learn something but to relax and go shopping. If you visit the Da Vinci Museum with a relaxing attitude, you will consider that these manuscripts and models of Da Vinci are dull and boring compared with the fancy luxury goods of Milan Avenue.
再說第二點，你不能用「慢思考」的方法，解決「快思考」的問題。
Move on the second point, you can’t use the "slow thinking" method to solve the "fast thinking" problem.
你同樣可以簡單理解為，你不能用看DannyData視頻的心態去刷抖音，本來刷的就是個樂呵，你也別指望能學習到太多知識，事實上我自己也喜歡沒事在抖音上刷刷貓貓狗狗開心麻花啥的，開心就完事了。
You can also interpret it as that you can't keep the mentality of watching DannyData videos to browse Tik Tok. Swiping Tik Tok is just for fun. You don't expect to learn too much knowledge. I』d like to swipe Tik Tok to see those cats, dogs, and Mahua FunAge. Momentary happiness is enough.
當然，學會用「快思考」的方法解決「快思考」的問題，也能應用在其他生活案例上。
Of course, applying the "fast thinking" method to solve the "fast thinking" problem can also be useful in other life cases.
比如口香糖為什麼總放在超市的收銀臺旁邊？
For example, why is chewing gum always displayed next to the cash register in the supermarket?
因為口香糖並不是生活的必需品，是衝動型「快思考」的消費產品，所以需要「快思考」的刺激方法，消費者拿到後就能很快完成結帳。
This is because chewing gum is not a necessity in daily life but an impulsive "fast thinking" consumer product. Therefore, a stimulating method of "fast thinking" is required, and consumers can quickly complete the checkout once they get it.
再比如英國的BIT（行為洞察組）致力於用行為經濟學工具幫助政府提升公共服務水平，比如協助英國機動車執照局減少車輛稅拖欠情況。
Another example is the UK's BIT (Behavioural Insight Team) devoted to using behavioral economics tools to help the government improve public service, such as assisting the UK Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency to reduce vehicle tax arrears.
車主繳納稅款，大多數人都是一種「快思考」：不需要太多的評估、橫向對比等等。這個不像買手機。
Most of the car owners pay their taxes using a "fast thinking" method: they don't need too many assessments, horizontal comparisons, etc. That is not like buying a mobile phone.
最早的情況是，政府通過向欠稅車主發「催繳通知書」，而「催繳通知書」都是使用繁瑣的法律語言，典型的「慢思考」刺激方式，如：「納稅人、扣繳義務人應按稅法規定的期限及時足額繳納應納稅款，以完全徹底地履行應盡的納稅義務...」
The original situation was that the government issued a "notification letter" to the people who owe vehicle taxes, and that letter used complex legal language. That is a typical "slow thinking" stimulus method, such as:"Taxpayers, withholding obligations shall pay the tax payable in full and on time in accordance with the period prescribed by the law, in order to fully and completely fulfill the tax obligations due..."
BIT進行了實驗，將繁瑣的法律語言，改為「快思考」的刺激方式：配上了車輛照片，採用更直接的語言——「不納稅，就收車！」
BIT run an experiment where they changed the complex legal language into a "fast thinking" stimulus by using a photo of the car and more understandable language——"Pay your tax or lose your car!"
結果顯示，在「快思考」改進版本的「催繳通知書」發出後，主動繳費人數上升了20%。
The results showed that after sending the revised letters that using the "fast thinking" method, the number of people who paid their taxes increased by 20%.
好了，回到我在視頻開頭的問題，如何能讓遊客們少扔垃圾呢？
Now, referring back to the question from the beginning: how to make tourists litter less?
不用跟他們囉嗦太多，直接用「快思考」的方式就完事了，比如：「扔垃圾，就拘留！」
Just simply use the "fast thinking" method and using phrases like: "Arrest if you litter!"
事實上去過新加坡的同學都知道，為什麼新加坡的環境這麼幹淨？其實就是因為新加坡政府對不文明的行為有特別嚴厲果斷的處罰，在新加坡，亂丟垃圾、吐痰等行為最高可處10000新幣的罰款，一般都在300新幣以上，折合人民幣差不多1400元以上的罰款，屢教不改和情節嚴重的還要處以更嚴重的刑罰。
In fact, anyone who has visited Singapore would know the reason why the streets there are so clean. The truth is that Singapore's government is strict with any savage behaviors such as throwing garbage or spitting on the street. All these behaviors will be penalized, and the highest could reach ten thousand SGD, and the lowest is around 300 SGD, which is approximately 1400 RMB. If you are caught multiple times, the penalty could be even worse.
好了，今天我講了「金錢不是萬能的」、「快思考」和「慢思考」、以及如何在生活中用「快思考」的方法解決「快思考」的問題、用「慢思考」的方法解決「慢思考」的問題。
To summarize, today I talked about "money is not everything", "thinking fast and slow", as well as using intuition to solve "fast thinking" problems and using logic to solve "slow thinking" problems.
類似的，我們不只需要在現實生活中需要學會「慢思考」，在網際網路上看消息和發表自己觀點的時候，更需要「慢思考」。
Similarly, we not only need to learn "slow thinking" in daily life but also use it when surfing on the Internet, expressing our opinions, and viewing other people's comments.
現在網際網路上的輿論存在太多的「反轉劇情」了，有些比大片還要精彩，每次劇情的反轉其實都是一夥別有用心的人帶領一大幫「快思考」的吃瓜群眾，看熱鬧不怕事大。
Nowadays, there are too many "reversal plots" on the Internet and some of which are even better than Hollywood blockbusters. Every time the plot is reversed, it is actually a group of people with ulterior motives who lead a large group of "fast thinking" people to watch the troubles stirring up.
而且我們每個人在網上其實都是帶著一副面具在說話，包括你們在DannyData視頻裡看到的小丹尼，哪怕我再想在網上表現真實的自我，但其實也會和真實世界裡的我有很大差距，比如你們別看我在這裡經常跟你們瞎白呼，但真實世界裡的我並沒有那麼愛說話，也沒那麼健談。所以你們不需要把自己在網際網路上看到的任何人想像得太好或太壞，包括我在內，就是凡夫俗子一個。
Moreover, every one of us is talking with a mask, including the Danny that you see in DannyData videos. Although I did try hard to show the real me in my videos, you will still feel that I'm not the same person when meeting me in real life. For example, now you see me keep talking for a while, but in real life, I'm actually not that talkative. So please don't imagine anyone you see on the internet as a good or bad guy, including me, I'm just an ordinary person.
最後，以我很喜歡的《烏合之眾》的一句話作為結尾：
Last, I'd like to close with a quote from the book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind:
「昨天受群眾擁戴的英雄一旦失敗，今天就會受到侮辱。當然名望越高，反應就會越強烈。」"The hero whom the crowd acclaimed yesterday is insulted today should he have been overtaken by failure. The reaction, indeed, will be the stronger in proportion as the prestige has been great. "
現在你可以想想，這種「失敗的英雄」在網際網路上是否大量存在呢？不用我多說你們也都知道有誰了吧，所以我從來不想當「英雄」，更不想當「失敗的英雄」，平時和我的同路人觀眾們聊聊天就行了。
Now, do you recall many of those "failed heroes" on the Internet? Well, I guess everyone can name three. So I never want to become a "hero", especially not a "failed hero". I just want to build a relationship and communicate with those who share the same value.
如果你覺得我說的對你有幫助，別忘了幫我點讚三連，我是小丹尼，談車說科技，Techs Never Die，回見。
If this video is useful to you, don't forget to like the video and my channel. I'm Danny, I talk about tech and cars. Techs Never Die, see you next time.
文稿/校對：小丹尼、Emma
剪輯/視覺：羅兆吉、Alex、趙忠彥、寧新茹、呂曉彬、雷傑
播講：小丹尼
翻譯：Xuyang、嘉瑤、楊墨、韓子菲、施震
排版：Xuyang