楊瑞

“In this book， I have summed up how to put your space in order in a way that will change your life forever.”

This is the ambitious first sentence of Marie Kondo1）s best-selling manifesto， The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up. Direct and devoid of clutter， this sentence rings true to her philosophy. Unlike most self-help books， there are no extraneous words， no pandering2）—the lack of “wink wink” gesturing reads as an appealing， authentic statement.

In the introduction of her book， Kondo quantifies the power of her advice—she estimates that shes helped her clients dispose of no fewer than a million items. This number is astonishing， but a key element of Kondos argument is that hardly anyone is aware of how many items he or she owns. Most wouldnt even notice if some of those items are gone， she argues， but the problem is that throwing things out and putting belongings in the right place requires jumping through some psychological hoops3）.

Why do people have so much trouble throwing things out？ Turns out， the answer lies in peoples heads. Running through Kondos best advice and most of her book is the argument about the anxiety-induced limits of human decision-making. Seeing as an entire branch of economics studies exactly that， its no wonder that economists have a particular interest in her advice. Financial Times columnist Tim Harford agrees that Kondos methods are not only intuitive， but compelling to economists. Harford says that the clutter that piles up in apartments is a product of peoples cognitive blunders4）.

In my reading and practice of the eponymous5） “KonMari Method，” I found that Kondo does implicitly touch on some important behavioral economics concepts and cognitive biases that prevent us from being tidy. She takes strong stances against these irrational mental habits that govern us. In other words， I think the reason Kondo-mania continues is because she has actually hit upon some good solutions to deal with these pervasive mental fallacies.

For example， Kondo aptly6） attacks whats called the sunk-cost fallacy7）. The term “sunk cost” applies to payments （of time or money） that have already occurred and thus cant be recovered. The moneys spent， an investment has been made， and it makes people irrational because it seems a waste to not use something that one has poured resources into. The irrationality of this thinking is that people ignore whether an item they own is still useful to them， and whether theyll actually use or resell it. In my tidying efforts， I find that the sunk-cost fallacy hits harder for new items， because unused items retain more value in resale. Kondos advice is to get rid of them， and her faith in keeping only the things that “bring us joy” addresses the economic concept of opportunity cost8）： The mental and physical toll of keeping an unused item around is greater than throwing it out.

Harford， the FT columnist， found that the KonMari Method addressed other economic concepts， such as the status-quo bias9） and diminishing returns10）. He writes： “Status quo bias means that most of your stuff stays because you cant think of a good reason to get rid of it. Kondo turns things around. For her， the status quo is that every item you own will be thrown away unless you can think of a compelling reason why it should stay.” I found that this new status quo was particularly helpful in discarding paper， namely because I couldnt find a compelling reason to hang onto all my credit card statements. They came in the mail， and I kept them just because thats what I always did. Kondos method sets a new status quo： Throw them out. My boyfriend and I took this one step further， cancelling our paper statements for credit cards and utilities.

I found it a bit harder to put Kondos wariness of diminishing returns—the idea that the more you have of something， the less valuable each successive item is—into practice. Perhaps it was because this most applies to the items I have the hardest time throwing out： clothes. Kondos method of putting all of whatever-item-is-being-evaluated on the floor not only overwhelmed me， but it also made me anxious. It reminded me that the reasons I have so much clothing are that firstly I want to be prepared in case I dont have time for laundry in a given week， and secondly that the neurological pleasure of cheap fashion is very scary and real. Because of my laundry concern， the idea of having three pairs of identical black work pants seems pragmatic to me. I could see the diminishing returns of having 20 T-shirts， so I discarded the ones that dont fit.

Another important point that Kondo protects us from is the folly of prediction： People systematically make terrible guesses about the future. So instead， people should focus on the present， and in tidying， this manifests in the form of using present-day valuations of all of ones belongings. People are wrong when they think that pair of jeans will ever fit again， Kondo is arguing. Theyre also wrong when they think theyll read that book again. These optimistic predictions keep people from getting rid of things they dont need.

Another way of looking at this fallacy is as a form of loss aversion11）—that humans psychologically hate losing things. Not only do people hate the idea of losing something that might be needed someday， but things that seem valuable just because they belong to us. In one famous study12）， economists Daniel Kahneman， Jack Knetsch， and Richard Thaler demonstrated with a coffee mug that people ascribe much higher value to things they own， simply because they owned them. This means that people might do well to take the KonMari method further， to think hard before acquiring any new belongings.

At first I wasnt able to stray too far from maintaining the number of items I originally owned—I initially stuck to my old notions of the status quo. But Kondo does a convincing job of arguing how thrilling it is to discard items one doesnt like， and it certainly helped me stop counting altogether.

Aside from economics， I also found two less-touted parts of the KonMari method very important in this process of purging. The first is keeping family away when tidying， as sentiment runs high when a family member is around. The other is that the KonMari method should be executed in complete silence. No music， no background movie or TV show. This makes the KonMari method both intense and a bit exhausting， but I have never used my intellect so hard to fight myself in cleaning up my apartment—Ive also never been as successful at it.

My biggest revelation came when I was cleaning my bookshelves： 20 percent of the books didnt even belong to me. I realized that Kondo is right—its actually rare for anyone to notice that something is gone. Cherished books belonging to old roommates， college friends， my father， even an old boss—their owners never got in touch with me， even as were more connected than ever.

A rational place to live doesnt sound very sexy， but a tidy place to live is indeed much more comfortable. And now tidying carries a point of pride beyond having a clean apartment： knowing that were outsmarting our cognitive biases.

“在這本書中，我總結了如何使你的空間整齊有序的方法，這種方法將永遠地改變你的生活?！?/p>

這是《怦然心動的人生整理魔法》一書雄心勃勃的開篇詞。這本宣言式的書是近藤麻理惠最暢銷的作品。書中開篇的這句話開門見山，干凈利落，真實地道出了她的理念。與大多數(shù)自助類書籍不同，這本書沒有廢話，不迎合讀者——書中沒有那種“討好”式的語句，其陳述引人入勝又真實可信。

在這本書的前言部分，近藤通過數(shù)字來說明她所提建議的影響力——據(jù)她估計，她幫助客戶處理了不少于一百萬件物品。這個數(shù)字很驚人，但是近藤的觀點中關鍵的一點是，幾乎沒有人意識到自己有多少件物品。近藤說，大多數(shù)人甚至都不會注意到這些物品中的一些已經(jīng)不在了，但問題在于，要丟棄東西以及把自己的物品放在正確的地方，這需要我們經(jīng)受心理上的磨練。

為什么人們?nèi)訓|西會這么難呢？原來，問題出在人們的思想上。焦慮會導致人們在做出決定時受到局限，這一論點是近藤最佳建議的核心，貫穿了她那本書的大部分章節(jié)?？吹浇?jīng)濟學有完整的一個分支研究的就是這個，難怪那些經(jīng)濟學家會對近藤的建議特別感興趣呢?！督鹑跁r報》的專欄撰稿人蒂姆·哈福德認為，近藤的方法不僅基于直覺，而且令經(jīng)濟學家著迷。哈福德說，公寓里堆砌的雜物是人類認知錯誤的產(chǎn)物。

在閱讀《怦然心動的人生整理魔法》以及實踐與書名同名的方法的過程中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)近藤的確隱約觸及到了一些重要的行為經(jīng)濟學概念和認知偏見，正是這些概念和偏見阻礙我們變得井井有條。近藤強烈地批判了這些支配著我們的非理性思維習慣。換句話說，我認為近藤一直風靡的原因就在于她真的找到了解決這些普遍心理誤區(qū)的好方法。

例如，近藤巧妙地抨擊了所謂的沉沒成本誤區(qū)。“沉沒成本”這個詞指的是那些已經(jīng)發(fā)生并且無法收回的付出（比如時間或金錢）。錢花了，投資做了，對于這些已經(jīng)投入資源的東西，如果不用似乎就是浪費，因此人們會變得不理性。這種觀念的不理智之處在于，人們忽略了他們所擁有的物品對自己來說是否還有用，以及他們以后是否真的會用還是會轉(zhuǎn)賣掉。在我努力整理的過程中，我發(fā)現(xiàn)沉沒成本誤區(qū)在新東西上體現(xiàn)得尤為明顯，因為沒用過的東西在再銷售時更有價值。近藤的建議是徹底擺脫這些東西。她的理念是只留下那些“讓我們怦然心動”的東西。該理念討論的就是機會成本這個經(jīng)濟學概念：相比于扔掉一件無用的物品，保留它所造成的心理傷害和實際損失要更大。

《金融時報》專欄撰稿人哈福德發(fā)現(xiàn)近藤麻理惠的方法也討論了其他經(jīng)濟學概念，例如維持現(xiàn)狀偏見和邊際效用遞減規(guī)律。他寫道：“維持現(xiàn)狀偏見的意思是，大部分東西得以保留，是因為你找不到一個正當?shù)睦碛蓙砣拥羲鼈?。近藤把這個道理反過來說。對她來說，維持現(xiàn)狀就是你擁有的每一件物品都將被扔掉，除非你能想到把它留下的迫切理由。”我發(fā)現(xiàn)這種新的維持現(xiàn)狀理念對丟棄紙張大有益處，因為我找不到一個迫切的理由來保留所有的信用卡對賬單。這些對賬單是郵寄給我的，我留著它們僅僅是因為我一直都這么做。近藤的方法設立了一種新的現(xiàn)狀：扔掉它們。我和男友的做法則更進一步：取消了信用卡和水電氣的紙質(zhì)對賬單。

近藤提醒要謹防邊際效用遞減規(guī)律，即你擁有的一種物品的數(shù)量越多，每個單件物品的價值就會逐漸越少。我發(fā)現(xiàn)要將這一點付諸實踐有點難。也許是因為這一規(guī)律主要適用于丟棄對我來說最難丟棄的東西——衣服。近藤的方法是把所有要接受估值的物品擺放在地板上，這既讓我感到不知所措，也使我感到焦慮。這讓我想起我之所以有這么多衣服是因為：首先，我要多準備一些衣服以防在某一周內(nèi)沒有時間去洗衣服；其次，廉價時裝帶來的神經(jīng)興奮是非常驚人且真實的。因為擔心洗衣服的問題，所以擁有三條一模一樣的黑色工裝短褲對我來說似乎挺實用的。但我也體會得到擁有20件T恤的邊際效用遞減規(guī)律，所以那些不合身的T恤我都扔掉了。

近藤防止我們進入的另一個很重要的誤區(qū)是犯傻去預測未來：人們經(jīng)常對未來做一些糟糕的猜測。所以人們應該反過來著眼于現(xiàn)在，著眼于整理空間，這體現(xiàn)在根據(jù)當下的估值來衡量一個人的所有物品。近藤認為，人們要是以為那條牛仔褲以后會合身的話，那就錯了。人們要是以為那本書他們以后還會讀，那也錯了。這些樂觀的預測會阻止人們?nèi)拥羲麄儾恍枰臇|西。

這種心理誤區(qū)也可以看成是一種損失厭惡，即人們在心理上就是厭惡失去東西。人們不僅厭惡失去那些某天或許會派上用場的東西，還厭惡失去那些僅僅因為我們擁有才似乎有價值的東西。在一項著名的研究中，經(jīng)濟學家丹尼爾·卡內(nèi)曼、杰克·尼奇和理查德·泰勒用一個咖啡杯證明人們會賦予自己擁有的東西更高的價值，僅僅是因為他們擁有這些東西。這意味著人們或許最好采取比近藤麻理惠的整理術更嚴苛的方式，即在獲取任何新物品之前都三思。

起初，我會維持自己原本擁有的物品的數(shù)量，做不到舍棄太多——我最初抱著維持現(xiàn)狀的老觀念不放。但近藤很有說服力，她讓我相信扔掉自己不喜歡的物品有多么令人激動，而這確實讓我不再統(tǒng)計物品的數(shù)量了。

除經(jīng)濟學概念之外，我還發(fā)現(xiàn)在清理物品的過程中，近藤麻理惠的方法里有兩點不那么受人追捧，卻是極為重要的。第一點是在整理時讓家人離開，因為家人在身邊時我們會情緒激動。第二點是近藤麻理惠的方法要在絕對安靜的環(huán)境下實行。不能有音樂，不能有電影或電視節(jié)目作為背景音。這樣一來，近藤麻理惠的方法會令人緊張，又令人覺得有些精疲力竭。但我在整理公寓時從來沒這么費腦子跟自己斗爭過——也從來沒有如此成功過。

我最大的啟示是我在整理書架時領悟到的：書架上20%的書根本就不是我的。我意識到近藤是對的——人們真的很少能注意到某件東西丟了。這些珍貴的書屬于我以前的室友、大學時的朋友、我爸爸甚至我以前的一位老板——這些書的所有者從來沒跟我提過它們，即使我們現(xiàn)在的聯(lián)系比以前更密切。

一個理性的住所聽起來并不那么吸引人，但一個整潔的住所的確會舒適很多?，F(xiàn)如今，整理空間不僅讓我們擁有一個整潔的公寓，還會帶來些許自豪：我們知道自己戰(zhàn)勝了認知偏見。