14. Are You a Maximizer or a Satisficer?
发布时间 2025-03-23 00:00:00 来源
How would you like to work at a podcast, young lady? Is that the question? I'm Antilla Duckworth. I'm Stephen Dubner. And you're listening to no stupid questions. Today on the show, when it comes to decision making, is it better to maximize or satisfy? Can I ask, is synonym for maximizer pain in the ass? Also, what is the ideal interview question? No, I noticed you've got a Philly's head on. Are you from Philadelphia? And then all of a sudden, an hour has gone by, and the interview's over.
你愿意在一个播客工作吗，小姑娘？这是你的问题吗？我是安提拉·达克沃斯。我是史蒂芬·达布纳。您正在收听《没有愚蠢问题》节目。今天的话题是，在做决策时，是追求极致更好，还是满足于适可而止更好？我可以问一下，“追求极致”是否是“麻烦鬼”的同义词？另外，什么是理想的面试问题？比如，我注意到你戴着费城人的帽子。你是来自费城吗？结果，一个小时很快过去了，面试也结束了。
Angela Duckworth, I have a question for you today. Shoot. I want to know whether you are a maximizer or a satisfacer? And why? And while you answer, I want you to explain maximizing and satisfying where it comes from. What it means? I am a maximizer. I had a feeling. Yeah, you knew me. So that means that when it comes to my work, I am trying to do better and better and better. That's what maximizers do. They try to maximize. Better and better and better compared to your previous self or better compared to other people. Compared to my previous self. And I think that's generally what maximizers are trying to do, basically, they're trying to optimize outcomes.
安吉拉·达克沃思，我今天有个问题要问你。 请说。我想知道你是一个极致追求者还是一个满意主义者？ 为什么？在你回答时，我希望你能解释一下极致追求和满意主义的含义和来源。我是一个极致追求者。我就知道。是的，你了解我。 这意味着在工作方面，我总是努力做到更好、更好、更好。这就是极致追求者所做的，他们努力最大化。是和你之前的自己比更好，还是和其他人比更好？ 和我之前的自己相比更好。我认为这通常是极致追求者所努力的目标，基本上来说，他们试图优化结果。
And that's the intuitive answer, at least the way economists think about human beings making choices. Like, of course, you're trying to get the best ice cream cone, have the best outcomes. But, satisfaction is a more recent idea. It comes from Nobel laureate Herb Simon. He won the Nobel Prize for Economics. But he was really more of a psychologist, decision scientist. And Simon coined this term, satisfaction, for a very different process. You're not trying to get the best or do the best or choose the best. You're trying to choose good enough.
这是一个直观的回答，至少在经济学家眼中，人类做选择就是这样的。例如，当然，你希望得到最好吃的冰淇淋，获得最好的结果。然而，"满意度"这个概念则是一个比较新的想法。它来自诺贝尔经济学奖得主赫伯特·西蒙。但实际上，他更像是一位心理学家和决策科学家。西蒙创造了“满意”这个术语，用于描述一种截然不同的决策过程。你不是在追求最好、做到最好、或选择最好，而是选择一个“足够好”的选项。
So what's so interesting is, even as you're describing it, you've got a sneer in your voice. I know. I have maximizing tendencies, probably in lots of domains, especially in my work. When asked, are you the kind of person who settles for good enough? Every cell in my body says, no, why would I do that? All right, let me transfer you virtually to a totally different domain. Let's say you and I were hungry. We've been working together and we need to get a bite to eat. Do you remain a maximizer there? I am absolutely a maximizer. I want to know that within a certain X-block radius, I have chosen the best restaurant, including lots of parameters like price, so value for money.
因此，有趣的是，即使你在描述时，声音中也带着一丝不屑。我知道，我在许多方面都有追求完美的倾向，尤其是在工作上。如果有人问我是不是那种满足于“差不多就行”的人，我身体里的每一个细胞都会说：“不，我为什么要那样做？”好吧，让我把你虚拟地转移到一个完全不同的领域。假设你和我饿了，我们一起工作，需要找点东西吃。这时你还是追求完美主义者吗？我绝对是个完美主义者。我想知道在一定范围内，哪家餐厅是最好的，包括很多因素，比如价格，也就是物超所值。
And not only that, Steven, I want to know that I ordered the best thing on the menu for me at that time in my life. Can I ask, is synonym for maximizer pain in the ass? I have to say, I can't even help it. I literally say sometimes when I'm staring at a menu, oh, I wonder what the best thing is. And I'm usually the one asking the waiter, the waitress, what's the best thing that you serve here? Whenever I ask something like that, the answer I get is people seem to like the chicken. Yeah, but it's like, what do these people seem to like it? It wasn't that hard of a question.
不仅如此，Steven，我希望知道我在那个时期点了菜单上最适合我的菜。我能问一下，“尽善尽美者”是不是就是个麻烦呢？我必须承认，我根本无法控制自己。我经常在看菜单时自言自语：“哦，我好奇什么是最好吃的。” 而且我通常是问服务员这里有什么推荐的人。每次我这样问，得到的回答总是：“大家好像都喜欢鸡肉。” 是的，但这些人为什么喜欢呢？这可不是一个难回答的问题。
Well, Steven, are you a satisfies? I mean, you ask me these questions like your suspicious of my maximizing tendencies. I have to say, I'm not so surprised that you're a maximizer, especially in a professional realm. And look, when I study Steven, I study excellence. And I admire you and everybody else who wants to maximize. And it doesn't have to be a professional setting. If you're a volunteer, if you're a parent, I very much appreciate the urge to maximize. And I share that urge in many realms some of the time. But I also really, really, really appreciate the value of satisfying.
好的，Steven，你是一个追求满足的人吗？我的意思是，你问我的这些问题就像你对我追求最大化的倾向感到怀疑。我不得不说，对于你是一个追求最大化的人，尤其是在职业领域，我并不感到惊讶。听着，当我研究Steven的时候，我研究的是卓越。我很欣赏你和其他所有想要追求最大化的人。这不仅仅是在职业环境中。如果你是志愿者或者是父母，我也非常欣赏这种追求最大化的冲动。在许多情况下，我也有这种冲动。但我也非常非常非常欣赏满足的价值。
Okay, give me an example. I'll take our same example, you and me going out for a bite to eat. We're both hungry. So now I'm starting to think about what is the opportunity cost of maximizing? How long do we have to stand here looking on our phones to find the place that has an eighth of a star higher rating? And then we have to debate the merits of Yelp versus whatever ratings to see, well, how can we tell what's the best actual empirical evidence of this? When I say to myself, it's just a meal. And this perfectly good cart over here can serve us chicken on rice.
好的，给我一个例子。就拿我们出去吃东西的例子来说吧。我们都饿了，所以我开始思考，花时间寻找口碑更高的餐馆的机会成本是什么。我们要花多长时间在手机上查找仅高八分之一星的地方？然后，我们还要争论是相信Yelp的评分，还是其他评分，以了解哪一个才是最可靠的证据。这时我对自己说，这只是顿饭而已，这边的流动摊贩就能给我们提供鸡肉拌饭，很不错了。
Right, let's have some dirty water hot dogs and be done with it. I mean, this is really about decision making. Every decision is different. If you're talking about choosing a life partner or a vocation, let's do some maximizing. If you're talking about lunch, I'm okay with some satisfying. And then there are many, many things in between. So I was exposed to this idea of maximizing and satisfying, I don't know, 15, 20 years ago from psychologists, Barry Schwartz. And to me, it was a very useful concept because I do feel I'm a maximizer in certain realms, especially when it comes to work, things that I care about, or my family.
好的，那就来点“脏水热狗”解决一顿吧。我的意思是，这其实是关于决策，毕竟每个决定都是不同的。如果是在选择人生伴侣或职业上，我们需要尽量做到最好。但如果是选择午餐的话，我觉得让自己满意就好。在这两者之间，还有很多很多事情。我大概在15到20年前从心理学家巴里·施瓦茨那里了解到“尽量做到最好”和“让自己满意”这个概念。对我来说，这是一个非常有用的概念，因为我发现，尤其是在工作、关心的事情或家庭方面，我确实是一个追求完美的人。
But then I just started to feel like, if you think economically, I wanted to come up with categories of life where I consciously wanted to be a satisfacer. And so to me, that seemed like a very logical bifurcation. So first of all, what do you have to say about his view of maximizing and satisfying as it pertains to, let's say, happiness or satisfaction? And then let's talk about how you can move from one realm to the other if you so desire. Barry is a great psychologist and he teamed up with some other psychologists in the creative scale for testing whether you are a maximizer or a satisfacer and where in that continuum you fall.
但后来我开始觉得，从经济的角度来看，我想为生活中的某些方面建立一些类别，在这些方面我有意识地想成为一个“满足者”。对我来说，这似乎是一个非常合乎逻辑的分支。首先，你对他关于在幸福或满足方面最大化和满足的观点有什么看法？然后，我们可以讨论如果你愿意，如何从一个领域转到另一个领域。Barry 是一位出色的心理学家，他与其他一些心理学家合作，创造了一种测试，来判断你是一个追求完美者还是一个满足者，以及你在哪个范围内。
And on his scale, he has items like, I never settle for second best or when I watch TV, I channel surf, scanning through available options, not easily settling on one. And I remember reading that scale and then quizzing myself and thinking, oh my gosh, I answered maximizer for every single one. And then when I read the articles, little worrisome because it turns out that in general, it's the satisfacers who are happier. They may not have more money, but they actually might feel okay about that. They're more likely to be satisfied with their work, etc.
在他的量表上，有一些项目，比如“我从不满足于第二名”或“当我看电视时，我会不停换台，浏览所有可选频道，而不轻易停留在一个频道上”。我记得看那个量表时，我自测了一下，发现自己每一项都选了“追求完美主义者”。然后，当我阅读相关文章时，有点担心，因为事实证明，一般来说，那些“满足者”更快乐。他们可能钱不多，但是他们对这一点其实也觉得可以。他们更容易对自己的工作感到满意，等等。
So to me, when I finished that article, I thought, well, I guess they're trade-offs. So high standards, maybe on objective ground, things are better, but you don't feel good. And I didn't change my mind about being a maximizer. I didn't think like, oh, I should be more satisfacing. There must be some areas in which you're a satisfacer. Well, look, I'm a satisfacer when it comes to exercise, physical exercise. I'm not the sort of person who's trying to get better in any athletic domain. You just want to tick the box. I got my exercise done.
对我来说，当我写完那篇文章时，我觉得每件事都有权衡。虽然高标准可能在某种客观意义上会带来更好的结果，但你不会感到舒心。我并没有改变追求极致的想法，也没有想过要更知足一些。不过，在某些方面，我的确是个知足者。比如说，在锻炼身体上，我就是一个知足者。我不是那种想在某个体育方面有所突破的人；我只是想完成任务，锻炼完就行了。
You know, I think it was Ben Franklin who said that if you exercise to the point where you're a little warm, you just raised your body temperature by two or three degrees, you've probably had a workout. And I'm in that camp. You think Ben Franklin said that? You know, he didn't really look very fit. I didn't need dive count. Sounds about right. Okay. So I'm a satisfacer, whether for good or for bad, when it comes to my physical exercise regime, I'm not optimizing there.
你知道吗，我记得好像是本·富兰克林说过，如果你运动到身体微微发热，你的体温提高了两三度，那你可能就是有了一次锻炼体验。而我就是这种观点的拥护者。你觉得是本·富兰克林说的吗？其实他看起来并不是很健康嘛。不过，这听起来挺合理的。好吧，所以无论好坏，在我的运动计划上，我只追求比较满意的效果，并不追求完美。
And is that because that's an activity that you enjoy less, that you assign less importance to? I think it must be in part because I don't care. I'm going to die. Well, you're going to hate to give away the end of the story. But maybe I'll die a little later because I'm getting my little middle aged workout during the day. Sometimes I'm trying to think if there's anything else I don't care about. There's so many domains in my life. Like what I would cook for our family dinner tonight, the emails that I write, my professional life, I'm kind of hard pressed to find many domains in my life where I don't care.
那么，这是否是因为这项活动让你不那么享受，或者你对它不太重视呢？我想部分原因是我不在乎。反正我会死的。不过，你可能不想提前剧透。但是，也许因为我白天进行了一些运动，我会晚点死。有时我在想，还有没有别的我不在乎的事。在我的生活中有太多领域。比如今晚为家人准备什么晚餐，我写的邮件，我的职业生活，我真的很难找到我不在乎的领域。
I think you have the right answer, though, which is it's probably good to be deliberate. Like where am I going to be a maximizer? And because it is exhausting and time is finite, where am I going to give a little? I'm just struggling to figure out which of the domains can you help me? How about this? You say that you're a maximizer even when it comes to your next meal. What if you take one meal a day and try to be a satisfacer for that meal? Just a good enough person. And say, you know what, rather than spend the time thinking about this, trying to optimize, I'm going to eat the first thing that looks decent.
我觉得你说得对，故意做事情可能是好的选择。比如说，我在哪里要成为一个“极致追求者”？因为这样会很累且时间有限，所以我在哪些方面可以放松一点？我只是很难弄清楚在哪个领域可以这样做，你能帮我吗？不如这样：你说你甚至在吃饭的时候都是一个极致追求者。那么如果你每天有一餐尝试做一个“满意者”呢？就是一个“够好主义者”。告诉自己，与其花时间思考和优化，不如直接吃第一个看起来不错的东西。
And see how that feels. Would you really do that? Would I do that? Yeah. Oh, I do that all the time. You do that now. I love food, but there are times when I say, I've been working really hard. I'm so hungry, I'm getting a headache. I need to eat. If there's the choice between, I could order from the Japanese place and get a really nice, robust, healthy, delicious thing, or I can eat the can of sardines and get back to my work. You're going to go sardines. I’m going to go sardines maybe two out of four times. Or one out of two times. That would be a number way to four or five out of ten times.
看看这种感觉怎么样。你真的会这样做吗？我会这样做？是的。我一直都这样做。你现在也这样做。我热爱美食，但有时候我会说，我已经非常努力地工作，非常饿，有点头疼，我需要吃点东西。如果我可以选择，要么从日本餐厅点一份非常美味健康的饭菜，要么吃掉一罐沙丁鱼然后继续工作，你会选择沙丁鱼。我可能会选择沙丁鱼四次中有两次，或者两次中有一次。这可能是十次中选择四到五次。
Bad with fractions, good with sardines. Yeah, exactly. Look, I'm sure I'm just ignoring all the areas in my life where I'm satisfying. Maybe that's a feature of satisfying. You don't think about this choice very much. That's the point of satisfying. You save time and energy. Well, let me ask you this. I believe Barry Schwartz wrote about the fact that people tend to become more satisfieders as they get older. Yeah, he did. He thinks that's why we get happier. Our standards go sell.
对分数不太在行，但对沙丁鱼很擅长。对，没错。你看，我肯定只是忽略了生活中那些让我满足的方面。这可能就是满足感的特点。你不会过多考虑这个选择。这就是满足感的意义所在——你节省了时间和精力。让我问你这个问题。我相信Barry Schwartz写过这样一个观点：人们随着年纪增长，往往会变得更容易满足。是的，他确实这样认为。他认为这就是为什么我们会更快乐，因为我们的标准变低了。
I think there's a different way of looking at that. It's not that you settle. I think it's about choosing to care less about things that matter less. Yeah, it's a little more Buddhist. It's not just that you're settling, but you've sort of unchained yourself. Barry Schwartz also believes that in so many ways, the idea of having more choices, maximizing our choices, these things that are supposed to lead to greater and greater happiness, they don't.
我认为可以用另一种方式来看待这个问题。这并不是妥协，而是选择少关注不那么重要的事情。是的，这种想法有点像佛教的理念。你并不是在将就，而是解放了自己。Barry Schwartz也相信，在很多方面，拥有更多选择、追求最大化选择这些本应带来更大快乐的事情，其实并不会带来真正的幸福。
In some cases, having 24 kinds of jam to choose from would be worse than having, say, three kinds of jam to choose from in terms of your happiness. This is the paradox of choice illustration. It was based on a real experiment in California where all these jars of jam when there were 24 or whatever, shoppers would look more and buy less. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're happier to have jam.
在某些情况下，相比于有三种果酱可以选择，有24种果酱可以选择可能让你更不开心。这就是选择悖论的一个例子。这个观点源于在加利福尼亚进行的一项真实实验。实验中，当有24种或类似数量的果酱时，购物者会花更多时间观看，但购买的却更少。但这并不一定意味着他们对拥有果酱感到更快乐。
It's a contentious area of literature. But there are certainly some research studies that suggest that when you come home with your jam after delivering, you're actually less happy with your jam relative to others, different study just using jam as the example. Okay, so let me ask you one last question. I've asked you to envision yourself trying to move in one realm from maximizing to satisfacing by eating whatever shows up for breakfast tomorrow.
这是一个有争议的文学领域。但确实有一些研究表明，当你送完东西回家，带着你自己的果酱时，相对于别人来说，你实际上对自己的果酱没那么满意，只是用果酱作为例子进行的不同研究。好，最后让我问你一个问题。我让你设想一下自己在某个领域的行为，从追求最佳到选择满意，比如明天早餐吃随便出现的东西。
What about the opposite? Now, you don't have this problem, but let's say somebody out there is listening and say, you know what? I hear Angela talking about this and I never really thought about satisfying versus maximizing. I've satisfied a lot and I'm not happy with it. I want to learn to maximize. So do you have any advice for a would be maximalist?
那反过来呢？现在你没有这个问题，但假设有一个人在听，并说，你知道吗？我听到安吉拉在谈论这个，我从没真正考虑过满足和最大化之间的区别。我满足了很多，但不开心。我想学会如何最大化。那么你对未来的最大化主义者有什么建议吗？
Well, it might be off putting to think like, wow, living life like a maximized, that sounds exhausting. Sounds like a world of unhappiness. But maybe I could just offer my own personal experience, which is I wake up every day. I want it to be better than the day before. And I do understand why people went from the outside would say it's exhausting. But I find it exhilarating.
嗯，想到“哇，把生活过得像极大化的一样”，这可能会让人觉得不安，觉得听上去是个充满不快乐的世界。但我可以分享一下我个人的经历：我每天醒来，都希望今天比昨天更好。我明白从外界来看，这种想法可能让人觉得很累，但我却觉得振奋不已。
And maybe if I could just share with people that they might say today just for one day, let me try it as a maximizer. And if I don't like it, I can retreat into my little, satisfying shell. She says, derisively. All warm and safe. So you're saying that you find your maximizing very satisfying, more satisfying than satisfying than satisfying.
也许我可以和大家分享一下，他们可能会说，今天就尝试一天，做一个力求完美的人。如果不喜欢，我还可以退回到我那舒适、满足的小壳里。她讽刺地说，那里温暖又安全。你是说，你觉得追求极致比安于现状更让你满意，甚至比单纯的满足更让你满足。
And that if the satisfaction would try to maximize more, they would find that their satisfaction might also rise by leaving behind satisfying. They might. Still to come on no stupid questions. What kind of job interview questions are really worth asking? How many golfers, how many balls do you use? What's the age range of plays golf?
如果他们尝试去最大化满足感，就会发现他们的满足感可能会因为放弃追求满足而增加。可能如此。稍后在《没有愚蠢问题》节目中，有哪些求职面试问题真正值得问？有多少高尔夫球手，你们用了多少高尔夫球？打高尔夫球的人的年龄范围是多少？
Steve. Stephen, I have a question about interviews. Interviews like interviewing for a job or interviewing people for journalism. Of course, I must specify I'm talking to Stephen Dumbner, job interviews. And in this case, I am not looking for a job. I am hiring people. So I've been doing job interviews. Is this an academic or research position? Yep, new people to work at character lab.
史蒂夫，斯蒂芬，我有个关于面试的问题。面试有两种，一种是求职面试，另一种是新闻采访。当然，我必须明确我在和斯蒂芬·达布纳谈的是求职面试。而在这个情况下，我并不是在找工作，而是在招聘。所以我一直在进行求职面试。这是一个学术或研究职位吗？是的，是在角色实验室招新人。
And here's my question for you. What is the best job interview question you have ever asked? So I'm not a manager person. But I do like questions that have a little bit of logic, a little bit of numeracy, and a little bit of like just watching someone think. So here's one question I read a long time ago that I loved.
这是我的问题：你问过的最好的工作面试问题是什么？虽然我不是管理人员，但我喜欢那些包含一些逻辑性、一些数学能力并且能观察一个人如何思考的问题。有一个问题我很久以前读到过，非常喜欢。
I'll just ask you, Angela, I'm interviewing you. Let's say it's for free economics radio. Okay. How would you like to work at a podcast young lady? Is that the question the answer would be yes. So here's a question. Let's say one day you're writing to work on the subway or the bus.
好的，Angela，我来采访一下你。假设这是为《自由经济学》电台准备的采访。你想在一个播客节目工作吗，小姑娘？如果这是问题的话，答案就是“是的”。所以这是一个问题：假设有一天你在地铁或公共汽车上写工作相关的内容。
And you see someone sitting near you, say a middle aged woman, and she's reading. She's got her nose buried in this book and she's got her hair drawn back and these thick glasses. And right next to her, she's got a big tote bag filled with more books. What's more likely that she is a librarian or a salesperson?
你看到一个坐在你旁边的人，比如说一位中年女性，她正在看书。她把鼻子埋在书里，头发被扎在后面，戴着一副厚眼镜。在她旁边放着一个装满更多书的大手提包。她更可能是一个图书管理员还是一个推销员呢？
This is like a Danny Connum in question, right? It's a Danny Connum in type of question. So I'm supposed to answer with base rates. So I have to think that there are, I think more salespeople than there are librarians. Many more. And therefore that person is more likely a salesperson.
这就像是个丹尼·康纳姆（Danny Connum）式的问题，对吧？这是一个丹尼·康纳姆类型的问题。所以我应该用基础概率来回答。我需要考虑的事，销售人员的数量比图书管理员要多得多。因此，这个人更可能是一个销售人员。
Even though there's this salient queue like books, librarian must be a librarian. So I'm going to go with salesperson. So I would be much more likely to want to hire you now just because you know what base rate means for one. And for those who don't know who Danny Connum is and what he's done, just describe a bit please.
即使有明显的书籍排队现象，图书管理员仍必须履行他们的职责。因此，我倾向于选择销售人员。因为你知道基准率的含义，我现在更有可能想要雇用你。对于那些不知道丹尼·卡能是谁以及他所做过的事情的人，请稍微介绍一下。
Danny Connum is a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, even though he's a world class psychologist. He's one of a handful of economics prize winners who was not an economist. Correct. Right. So to many people who are asking that question, it's plainly a leading question. You're plainly trying to not have it be a librarian.
丹尼·康纳姆是一位诺贝尔经济学奖得主，尽管他是一位世界级的心理学家。他是极少数获得经济学奖的非经济学家之一。没错，所以对于许多提这个问题的人来说，这显然是一个引导性问题。你显然不想让答案只是图书馆员。
But then what you want someone to do is talk it through and get to the logic. So the logic is pretty simple. And then you want to hear how numerous people are. So the fact is there's something like 150 librarians in America and 18 million salespeople. So the odds are that any given person who happens to be reading book and they look a little bit studious. Even if they're female and librarians are about 80% female, even so they used to be about 50-50 by the way. If you go back 100 years. If you said all that in an interview, it would be like, wow, this isn't just smart and nice there. Encyclopedic in their knowledge. But they know some stuff.
翻译成中文大意如下：
你希望有人能把整个过程说清楚，理清逻辑。其实逻辑很简单。然后，你希望听到各种人的看法。事实是，美国大概有150名图书管理员，却有1800万推销员。因此，一个看起来有点书生气的人在读书时，若是女性，尽管图书管理员中大约80%是女性，过去约100年前这个比例大约还是50-50的。如果你在面试中说这些，人们会觉得你不仅聪明和友好，而且知识渊博。他们确实知道一些事情。
Yeah. Well, you know what you're reminding me of. I was finishing up a master's degree and I decided for whatever reason that your master's degree. It was my own master's degree. I was at Oxford. Let me help you with that, buddy. Exactly. I was not finishing up someone else's master's going, not that nice. And I decided I wanted to work at McKinsey Consulting. And I remember that the interview was all of these sort of like logic-slash-fractions problems. I think this was the question I was asked. How many golf balls are sold in the United States every year? And you know, the logic part is you have to think like, how many golfers, how many balls do you use? What's the age range that plays golf?
好的。嗯，你让我想起了一些事情。我当时正在完成我的硕士学位，不知道出于什么原因，我决定这是你的硕士学位。实际上是我自己的硕士学位。当时我在牛津大学，让我帮你一点，伙计。没错，我并不是在完成别人的硕士学位，那可不太好。我决定想去麦肯锡咨询公司工作。我记得面试考了一些逻辑或者分数相关的问题。我想这是当时被问到的问题：每年美国卖出多少高尔夫球？逻辑部分在于你需要思考，有多少高尔夫球手？每个人使用多少球？哪个年龄段的人玩高尔夫？
The math part comes where you multiply fractions, one out of four people. That kind of question is sometimes called a Fermi question. Because I guess Fermi would ask these questions. I bet his were better than golf balls though. I bet he was really good at it. I think physicists ask really good questions. So do economists, so do psychologists. Yes. But I will say this whenever you look at the list of questions that actual HR people ask actual would be employees, I'll be honest with you, I cringe a little bit. So here are the top five most common interview questions. What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses? Why are you interested in working for our firm? Where do you see yourself in five years, ten years, and why do you want to leave your current company?
数学部分涉及到将分数相乘，比如每四个人中有一个的计算。这类问题有时被称为费米问题，因为据说费米会提这样的问题。我猜他的提问水平比打高尔夫球好。我相信他在这方面非常出色。我觉得物理学家会提非常好的问题，经济学家和心理学家也是。是的，但我必须说，每当看到实际的人力资源人员对求职者提出的问题清单时，说实话，我有点 cringe。以下是最常见的五个面试问题：你的优势是什么？你的弱点是什么？你为什么对在我们公司工作感兴趣？你对未来五年、十年的职业规划是什么？以及你为什么想离开你现在的公司？
So personally, I think the strengths and weaknesses, I just think they're not going to draw a much good material. Where are you going to be in five or ten years? Of the five, I like that the best. I've heard good answers to that. I do ask some version of that to people. I think like most people, I'm not looking for the quote right answer. I'm looking for a revealing answer. I'm looking for something that tells me in a relatively short time about character, depth, curiosity. On the other hand, I know Danny Coniman, who you mentioned, he's argued that when you're interviewing, you want a structured interview, almost a survey really, right?
所以我个人认为，关于优点和缺点的问题，可能不会引出很多有价值的内容。反而是“你五年或十年后在哪里？”这个问题，我比较喜欢。我听到过一些不错的回答，也会问应聘者类似的问题。我和大多数人一样，并不是在寻找所谓的“正确答案”，而是在寻找能够揭示应聘者个性、深度和好奇心的回答。另一方面，我知道你提到的丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Danny Kahneman）认为在面试时，我们应该进行结构化访谈，实际上几乎像是一种调查，对吗？
I think it's not only Danny Coniman, but you know, there's a consensus and social scientist that what's typically done is the unstructured interview, which is like person walks in, you strike up a conversation, you're like, oh, I noticed you've got a Philly's hat on. Are you from Philadelphia? And then the conversations of random walk through topics and then all of a sudden, an hour has gone by and the interview is over. That's what most interviews probably are like in America. And the consensus and social science is not only do they not add much predictive value to hiring the right person, but like in many cases could detract value.
我认为这不仅仅是丹尼·科尼曼的观点，实际上社会科学家普遍认为，大多数情况下，面试通常是非结构化的。面试者走进来后，你们随便聊聊，比如：“哦，我看到你戴了顶费城人的帽子，你来自费城吗？”接着话题就像漫步一样随机展开，一个小时很快过去，面试就结束了。这可能是美国大多数面试的样子。社会科学的普遍观点是，这种面试方式不仅对于找到合适的人没有太多预测价值，甚至在很多情况下会起到反作用。
In other words, if you hadn't interviewed the person at all, you would have been better off as an employer. Because you're basically building up an image, a projection based on kind of garbage. Well, I think the idea is this, you can come out of an hour long interaction with another human being, with a really strong visceral and emotional liking or disliking for that person. And then you could overweight it, you could ignore things like, well, the resume is not so strong, and I don’t know, the recommendations were iffy, but God, we had this great conversation about the Philly's.
换句话说，如果你根本就没有面试这个人，作为雇主你可能会更好。因为你基本上是在根据一些不可靠的信息建立一个印象或投射。我的意思是，在与另一个人一小时的交流后，你可能会对这个人产生非常强烈的感情上的喜欢或不喜欢。然后你可能会过度重视这种感受，而忽略一些事情，比如简历不怎么出色，推荐信也不是很确定，但天哪，我们却有过一次关于费城人队（棒球队）的精彩对话。
So for what it's worth, when we hire, if we can on McTradio or associated projects, we just do mostly written homework. We asked them, tell us about an episode that you liked of ours and why, and tell us an episode you thought was really bad and why. Ooh, I like that. Oh, thanks. I'm glad you approved. We should have probably run these by you before we started using them. And then we asked for some other homework like to propose some ideas and how you'd go about executing them and so on. So like you, I'm pretty skeptical that interviews are going to add a lot of value in the decision process.
所以，不管这值多少钱，当我们在McTradio或相关项目中招聘时，我们主要以书面作业为主。我们会要求他们告诉我们他们喜欢的一集，以及原因；然后再告诉我们他们认为非常糟糕的一集及其原因。哦，我喜欢这个。哦，谢谢，我很高兴你认可。在我们开始用这些问题之前，可能应该先征求一下你的意见。然后，我们还要求一些其他的作业，比如提一些想法，以及你将如何执行这些想法等等。所以，就像你一样，我对面试在决策过程中能带来很多价值持怀疑态度。
And like Danny Conman, many others, I worry that they could actually provide negative value. And what you just proposed, which is of course not an interview question, per se, it's really something else, I think that's called a work sample. And I think there's like a mountain of research showing that unlike unstructured interviews, work samples, which are just like, hey, you're going to have to do X. Could you do a little of X now? Let me see how, because those are really good. And I recognize that the world being as diverse as it is, every job is different, every industry is different, you can't always get that.
就像Danny Conman和其他许多人一样，我担心它们可能实际上带来负面价值。而你刚才提到的内容，当然这不算是一个面试问题，更像是其他类型的东西，我觉得这被称为“工作样本”。有大量的研究表明，与没有结构的面试不同，工作样本，比如说，你需要完成X任务。可以现在做一点X让我看看吗？这种方法非常有效。我也明白，世界如此多元，每个职位和行业都不同，因此不总是能够采用这种方法。
But when I was hired by the New York Times many years ago, the size of the work sample was unbelievable. What did they ask you to do? Do you remember? So I was interviewing for an editor at the Sunday magazine. I don't remember all the details, but I had to propose a number of story ideas attached to each idea a writer that I would want to assign and kind of conceive that whole thing. But then there was also just a lot of editing.
很多年前，当我被《纽约时报》聘用时，要求提交的工作样本规模大得令人难以置信。他们要求你做什么？你还记得吗？我当时正在面试《星期日杂志》的编辑职位。我不记得所有细节了，但我需要提出几个故事创意，每个创意都要附上我想要委派的撰稿人，以及整个方案的构思。另外，还涉及大量的编辑工作。
So I would be given manuscripts of 8 or 10,000 words. And you'd be given just a paper copy. So you can't use Microsoft Word Track Changes, not Google Doc. Like a red pencil. So the first thing I did was I made about 10 photo copies, because I knew it was going to take many drafts to get it where my comments were good. And then your comments are handwritten all over it. And then you're taping pieces of paper into the margins for where you need to handwrite another 200 words.
所以我会拿到8,000到10,000字的手稿，而且只是纸质版。你不能用Microsoft Word的“修订”功能，也不能用Google Doc，就是用红笔批注。所以我做的第一件事就是复印了大约10份，因为我知道需要很多遍草稿才能让我的评论完善。然后，你会在纸上手写各种意见，还有在边缘处贴上纸条，以便手写额外的200字评论。
And then you're having all these arrow diagrams to show, no, this paragraph that's now appearing at the beginning of the third section needs to actually be the first paragraph of the second section. So basically I did probably a week or two's worth of editing just to kind of get to the third of what turned out to be seven interviews. To me, that makes a lot of sense. I think the logic is, if you're not going to ask someone to be an editor, why don't you see how they edit as opposed to, let's see if I can have a 45 minute conversation with them.
然后你会用各种箭头图示来表示，比如说，这段现在出现在第三部分开头的段落，其实应该是第二部分的第一段。所以基本上，我花了一到两个星期的时间进行编辑，仅仅是为了整理出七个采访中的第三个。在我看来，这是很有道理的。我觉得逻辑很简单，如果你不打算找一个专门的编辑，那为什么不看看他们的编辑方式，而不是说，看我能不能和他们聊45分钟。
So if you're interviewing yourself or if you could choose, what's the one question you would be most excited to be asked? You know the question and this is really meta. So I hope it doesn't explode your brain. But if I were interviewing someone, I would ask them this question. Tell me the question that I should ask you that's going to make me hire you. And I actually got this idea from someone who I did hire and is fantastic. He runs Character Lab.
如果你在面试自己，或者你可以选择一个问题，那么你最希望被问到的问题是什么？你知道问题是什么，这真的很有趣。我希望这个问题不会让你头脑爆炸。但如果我是面试官，我会问对方这个问题：告诉我一个问题，我应该问你这个问题，它会让我决定聘用你。其实，我是从一个我已经雇用的人那里得到这个想法的，他非常出色，目前在管理一个叫Character Lab的组织。
And he said, if I had asked him, will you eat, breathe, drink and sleep your work? He would have said 100%. And you know, metaphorically he does. I have to say, if you were not a mid-career accomplished big name professor at the University of Pennsylvania, I would definitely offer you a job. At least a summer internship.
他说，如果我问他："你会全身心投入到工作中去吗？" 他会毫不犹豫地回答："当然会。" 而事实上，他确实是这样做的。不得不说，如果你不是宾夕法尼亚大学的一位资深知名教授，我一定会给你提供一份工作，至少是一个暑期实习机会。
Coming up after the break, a fact check of today's conversation. And now here's a fact check of today's conversations. Angela says that Ben Franklin was an advocate for mild exercise. Franklin was an avid swimmer and as a boy, he built flippers to propel himself through the water. Remarkably, in 1968, Franklin was posthumously inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame.
广告之后，我们将对今天的谈话进行事实核查。现在让我们来看看关于今天谈话内容的事实核查。安吉拉提到本杰明·富兰克林提倡适度运动。富兰克林是一位热衷游泳的人，在少年时期，他自己制作了蛙鞋来帮助自己在水中游动。值得注意的是，在1968年，富兰克林去世多年后被追认为国际游泳名人堂成员。
However, he did struggle with health issues and suffered from obesity. He developed Gout, which he personified in a satirical conversation entitled, dialogue between Franklin and Gout. In the piece, Franklin says to Gout, it is not fair to say I take no exercise when I do very often, going out to dine and returning in my carriage. The disease was not ultimately his cause of death as Angela surmised. Franklin died of pleuracy at his home in Philadelphia in 1790.
然而，他确实在健康问题上面临困扰，并且患有肥胖症。他患上了痛风，并在一篇讽刺对话中将其拟人化，题目为《富兰克林与痛风的对话》。在对话中，富兰克林对痛风说道：“说我不运动是不公平的，因为我经常外出吃饭，然后乘马车回来。”正如安吉拉猜测的那样，这种疾病并不是他最终的死因。富兰克林于1790年在费城的家中因胸膜炎去世。
During Stevens' librarian or salesperson hypothetical, he says that there are 18 million salespeople in the United States, which is about right. But Ben, he says that there are only about 150 librarians. Clearly, Stephen was mispeaking. It would be a very sad world if we only had three librarians per state. So apologies to the librarians of the country. Stephen likely met to guess 150,000 librarians, which is roughly accurate.
在斯蒂芬讨论图书管理员或销售员的假设情境时，他提到美国有1800万名销售员，这个数字大致正确。但本提到斯蒂芬说美国只有大约150名图书管理员。显然，斯蒂芬说错了。如果每个州只有三个图书管理员，那将是一个很糟糕的情况。我们向全国的图书管理员表示歉意。斯蒂芬很可能是想说15万名图书管理员，这个数字更加准确。
Finally, Angela refers to the question, how many golf balls are sold in the United States each year? Which, in case you're curious, is about 30 million. She called the question a Fermi question. A Fermi question is a quickly calculated estimate of something that's hard to measure directly. It's named for the famous physicist, Enrico Fermi, who was known for his impressive ability to quickly approximate difficult scientific calculations.
最后，安吉拉提到了一个问题：每年美国能卖出多少个高尔夫球？如果你感兴趣的话，大约是3000万个。她称这个问题为费米问题。费米问题指的是对一些很难直接测量的事情进行快速估算的问题。这个名字来源于著名物理学家恩里科·费米，他以快速近似复杂科学计算的出色能力而闻名。
The Drake equation is one famous example of a Fermi question. The Drake equation tries to determine the likelihood that will make contact with intelligent alien life forms by estimating the number of actively communicative, extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. So, in case you're asked to do this at your next job interview, just multiply the average rate of star formation in our galaxy by the fraction of those stars that have planets by the average number of planets for solar system with an environment suitable for life, by the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop civilizations, by the fraction of civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, by the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
德雷克方程是一个著名的费米问题的例子。德雷克方程试图通过估算银河系中活跃的、能够交流的外星文明数量，来确定我们与智能外星生命形式接触的可能性。因此，如果在下次求职面试中被问到这个问题，你只需要将银河系中恒星形成的平均速率，乘以恒星中有行星的比例，再乘以具有适合生命环境的太阳系中平均行星数量，接着乘以实际发展出文明的行星比例，再乘以能够发展出可以向太空发送可探测信号技术的文明比例，最后乘以上述文明持续向太空发送可探测信号的时间长度。
I'm glad Freconomics Radio relies on work samples because if they had asked that question, I would be out of a job. That's it for the fact check. No Stupid Questions is produced by Freconomics Radio and Stitcher. This episode was produced by me, Rebecca Lee Douglas. No Stupid Questions is part of the Freconomics Radio Network. Our staff includes Alice and Craig Lowe, Greg Ripon, James Foster and Corinne Wallace.
我很高兴《弗里经济学广播》依靠作品样本来招聘，因为如果他们问了那个问题，我可能就失业了。事实核查部分到此结束。《没有愚蠢问题》节目是由《弗里经济学广播》和Stitcher联合制作的。这一期节目是由我，Rebecca Lee Douglas制作。《没有愚蠢问题》是《弗里经济学广播》网络的一部分。我们的团队成员包括Alice和Craig Lowe、Greg Ripon、James Foster和Corinne Wallace。
Our theme song is And She Was by Talking Heads. Special thanks to David Byrne and Warner-Chappell Music. Also, if you heard Steven or Angela refer to something that you'd like to learn more about, you can check out Freconomics.com slash NSQ, where we provide links to all of the studies and experts you heard here today. Thanks for listening.
我们的主题曲是由Talking Heads演唱的《And She Was》。特别感谢David Byrne和Warner-Chappell Music的支持。另外，如果你听到Steven或Angela提到了一些你想深入了解的内容，可以访问Freconomics.com/NSQ，在那里我们提供了今天提到的所有研究和专家的链接。感谢您的收听。
Well, look, I'm just one person. No, you're not. I'm two people. That's a whole other conversation. I can have it myself. The Freconomics Radio Network, the hidden side of everything. Stitcher.
好吧，听我说，我只是一个人。 不，你不是。 你是两个人。 这是另一个话题。我可以自己聊。 Freakonomics 电台网络，一切事物的隐藏面。Stitcher。