神经科学与心理学2016researchgate.net
重视时间胜过金钱与更高的幸福感相关
Valuing time over money is associated with greater happiness
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：基本统计学概念、幸福经济学常识
导读
这篇论文通过多项调查研究'重视时间还是重视金钱'的取向与幸福感的关系，结论是更看重时间（而非金钱）的人总体上更快乐。研究采用问卷测量受访者的时间/金钱取向并比较其幸福感差异。
HN 关注点：时间与金钱的取舍是 HN 读者（多为高收入技术从业者）长期关心的话题，讨论焦点集中在研究样本是否有代表性、结论是否只是收入门槛效应。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 亲历 2
质疑结论只是边际收益递减的体现：富裕阶层闲暇更多自然更快乐，并不新颖
我搜了'边际收益递减'这个词，文章里居然没提，这算是个疏漏。这是基本经济学概念：拥有越多，每增加一单位带来的价值越低。所以达到一定收入后，人们会自然从劳动（收入）转向闲暇（爱好、做饭、育儿、游戏等）。数据也印证了这一点：研究 2b 中在科学博物馆调查的富裕人群家庭收入中位数为 10-14.9 万美元，'时间导向'比例是 69%；研究 4 中在线调查面板成员收入中位数 7.5-8.5 万美元，比例是 46%。'中上层阶级有更多闲暇所以更快乐'这个结论并不算什么突破。
roymurdock查看英文原文
I searched for the phrase "diminishing marginal returns" but could not find it in the article which seems like a bit of an omission. This is a fundamental economic concept - the more of something you have, the less value you derive from each incremental unit. So, based on personal preferences, once you reach a certain level of income you will start to substitute away from labor (income) towards leisure/free time (non-market activities such as hobbies, cooking, parenting, gaming, chilling). The study data shows this pretty clearly (if I'm reading it correctly) - in Study 2b (wealthy people polled at a science museum) the median household income was $100-149k and the "% Time Oriented" was 69%. In Study 4 (online panel members who get free internet in exchange for survey participation) the median household income was $75-85k and the "% Time Oriented" was 46%. The implied result that upper middle class folk are able to spend more time on leisure and are therefore happier on average than regular middle class folk doesn't seem too groundbreaking.
亲历亲历者：只有越过收入门槛后，时间与金钱的取舍才成立，这是富人的困境
我刚毕业时年收入 8000 英镑，要养活不工作的伴侣和小孩，钱根本不够花，'时间 vs 金钱'对我来说毫无意义，只能拼命工作。现在我有足够的钱不用为日常开销发愁，还有储蓄和度假，'把时间花在什么上面'才成为重要问题。我认为存在一个收入门槛：达到之前必须为生活方式赚更多钱，达到之后选择才打开。这类似基本收入的概念——所以'时间 vs 金钱'是富人的困境。另外'多赚钱就要少工作'的说法很可笑：低收入者工作时间长却赚得少，根本没有选择。
sjclemmy查看英文原文
When I was young and fresh out of college, I earned £8000 per annum and attempted to support a non-working partner and a small child. The idea of time vs money was irrelevant. I did not have enough money to live on. I would work as much as possible to get more money, and it still wasn't enough to live on. Fast forward to now where I have enough money not to bother about budgeting day to day and there is still enough money in my account for savings, holidays etc. whilst supporting a child (the same one!) at University and another trainer obsessed teenager. I think there is a threshold income - up to the point of the threshold more money is required to support the life style one expects. After that threshold is reached, options open up, and WHAT YOU SPEND YOUR TIME ON becomes a big factor. Think minimum basic income. So, time vs money is a rich persons dilemma. Also, the idea that there is a trade off between more money and longer hours is laughable. People on low incomes work long hours and still earn very little. There is no choice. You simply must work long hours to tread water financially. EDIT: I increased my income pretty quickly after that so I haven't suffered as much as the post suggests, but it was HARD work. The great thing about bringing up kids in your 20s is that you have a lot of energy to do all the things.
质疑质疑样本代表性：大量依赖学生和有偿调查面板，结论外推性存疑
各研究的样本：研究 1 是为赢取价值 700 美元奖品而参加的学生；研究 2a 是 260 名 UBC 学生（78% 女性）；研究 2b 是从温哥华科学博物馆招募的 518 名成人；研究 3a 是 242 名 UBC 学生（74% 女性）；研究 3b 是 2303 名 UBC 学生（76% 女性）；研究 4 是通过 GfK 调查面板招募、完成问卷换取小额现金奖励的样本。大家自己判断吧。
thejacenxpress查看英文原文
Study 1: "Students participated in exchange for the chance to win one of three prizes valued at $700." Study 2a: "Two hundred and sixty UBC students participated in exchange for entry into a lottery or for course credit (78% female)" Study 2b: "In Study 2b, 518 adults were recruited from a science museum in Vancouver, Canada" Study 3a: "In Study 3a, 242 UBC students participated in exchange for course credit or candy (74% female)" Study 3b: " we were able to recruit a very large sample of UBC students, who participated for course credit (N=2303; 76% female). Study 4: " we recruited our sample through the GfK Knowledge Networks Survey Panel. Panel members respond to an average of two online surveys per month and receive small cash rewards and prizes for survey completion" Make of it what you will
亲历亲历：每周只工作 15-20 小时，时间是最大资产，创业的机会成本被低估
过去约三年我拒绝了创业或加入创业公司，而是每周远程工作 15-20 小时。时间是你个人和职业上最大的资产，它让你能跟上这个时代最好的机会。你需要这种自由去探索让你心动的东西。创业会让你对其余的好机会几乎失明，这就是我不愿创业的原因，除非我认为那是'唯一的选择'。在我看来，创业工作的机会成本比你想象的更隐蔽——除非你需要钱，或确信自己在以最大的方式改变世界，否则别做。
orthoganol查看英文原文
I've shunned founding startups or working at startups for the last ~3 years, and instead worked 15-20 hr/wk usually remotely. Time is your greatest asset, personally and professionally. It's how you stay abreast of the great opportunities of our time. You need that freedom to explore things that pique your interest or move you. Founding a startup means becoming mostly blind to the other great opportunities, which is why I'm so reluctant to do a startup, unless I think it's "the one." IMO, the opportunity cost of startup jobs is far more sinister than you think. Only do it if you need the money or if you believe you're changing the world in the greatest way you can.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2016Hacker News 讨论帖483 分 · 200 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选