The Psychology of Human Misjudgment
发布时间 2016-02-23 22:36:59 来源
Although I am very interested in the subjective human misjudgment, and Lord knows I've created my, well, a good bit of it. I don't think I've created my full statistical share. And I think that one of the reasons was that I tried to do something about this terrible ignorance I left the Harvard Law School with. And I saw this patterned irrationality, which was so extreme. And I had no theory or anything to deal with it. But I could see that it was extreme, and I could see that it was patterned. I just started to create my own system of psychology, partly by casual reading, but largely from personal experience.
虽然我对人类主观误判非常感兴趣，并且天知道我也制造了不少这样的误判。不过，我认为我还没有达到我个人应有的“统计份额”。我觉得其中一个原因是，我试图补救我从哈佛法学院毕业时所带走的那种可怕的无知。我看到一种非常极端的非理性模式。当时我没有理论或方法来应对这种情况，但我能意识到它的极端性和规律性。于是，我开始创造自己的心理学体系，部分来源于偶然的阅读，但主要来自个人经验。
And I used that pattern to help me get through life. Fairly late in life, I stumbled into this book, Influence by a psychologist named Bob Sildini, who became a super tenured hot shot on a 2000 person faculty at a very young age. And he wrote this book, which is now sold 300,000 copies, which is remarkable for some, well, it's an academic book aimed at a popular audience. And that filled in a lot of holes in my crude system. And when those holes had filled in, I thought I had a system that was a good working tool. And I'd like to share that one with you.
我利用这个模式来帮助自己度过生活中的难关。直到人生的较晚阶段，我偶然发现了这本书：《影响力》，由心理学家鲍勃·西尔迪尼撰写。他在一支由2000人组成的师资团队中很年轻就成为了一个著名教授。他写的这本书如今已经售出了30万册，这对于一本面向大众的学术书来说，确实很了不起。这本书填补了我原先粗浅系统中的许多空白。当那些空白被填补后，我觉得我的系统已经成为一个很好的工作工具。我想和你分享这个工具。
And I came here because behavioral economics, how could economics not be behavioral if it isn't behavioral? What the hell is it? I think it's fairly clear that all reality has to respect all other reality. If you come to inconsistencies, they have to be resolved. And so the idea of if there's anything valid in psychology, economics has to recognize it and vice versa. So I think the people that are working on this fringe between economics and psychology are absolutely right to be there. And I think there's been plenty wrong over the years.
我来到这里是因为行为经济学，经济学如果不是关于行为的，那它是什么呢？显然，所有的现实都必须尊重其他现实。如果出现矛盾，它们必须得到解决。因此，如果心理学中有任何有效的东西，经济学也必须承认，反之亦然。因此，我认为那些研究经济学与心理学交叉领域的人完全是在正确的方向上。而且，我认为多年来确实有很多问题需要解决。
Well, let me ramp through my as much of this list as I have time to get through 24 standard causes of human misjudgment. First, under recognition of the power of what psychologists call reinforcement and economic economists call incentives. Well, you say everybody knows that. Well, I think I've been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives and all my life I've underestimated it. And never a year passes, but what I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little farther.
好的，让我尽可能多地浏览这个列表，我会根据时间来讨论24种人类误判的常见原因。首先，是心理学家称为强化和经济学家称为激励的力量被低估。你可能会说，人人都知道激励的重要性。然而，我认为我在这一点上的理解在我同龄人中一直处于前5%的水平，但即使如此，我还是低估了它的影响力。而且每年都会有一些让我意外的事情，让我对激励力量的理解有更深的认识。
So one of my favorite cases about the power of incentives is the federal express case or heart and soul of the integrity of the system is that all the packages have to be shifted rapidly in one central location each night. And the system has no integrity if the whole shift can't be done fast. And federal express had one hell of a time getting the thing to work. And they tried moral suasion, they tried everything in the world. And finally, somebody got the happy thought that they were paying the night shift by the hour.
我喜欢的一个关于激励机制威力的案例是联邦快递的故事。这个公司的系统核心在于，每个晚上所有包裹都必须快速转运到一个中心地点。如果整个转运过程不能迅速完成，这个系统就失去了其完整性。当时，联邦快递面临巨大挑战，费尽心思才让系统运转起来。起初，他们尝试过进行道德劝说，也尝试了各种方法，最后，终于有人意识到，他们是在按小时给夜班员工付工资。
And that maybe if they paid them by the shift, the system would work better. And low and behold, that solution worked. Early in the history of Xerox, Joe Wilson, who was then in the government had to go back to Xerox because he couldn't understand how either better new machine was going so poorly in relation to their older and inferior machine. Of course, when he got there, he found out that the commission arrangement with the salesman gave it tremendous incentive to the inferior machine.
也许如果他们按班次支付工资，系统会运行得更好。结果，果然这种解决方案真的奏效了。在施乐公司的早期历史中，当时在政府任职的乔·威尔逊不得不回到施乐公司，因为他不明白为什么性能更好的新机器表现得比旧的、性能较差的机器还要差。 当然，当他到达施乐公司时，发现销售人员的佣金安排极大地激励了他们去推广性能较差的机器。
And here at Harvard, in the shadow of a BF Skinner, there was a man who really was in the reinforcement as a powerful thought. And you know, Skinner's lost his reputation in a lot of places. But if you were to analyze the entire history of experimental science at Harvard, he'd be in the top handful. These experiments were very ingenious. The results were counterintuitive. They were important. It is not given to experimental science to do better.
在哈佛大学，在BF斯金纳的影响之下，这里有一个非常重视强化理论的人。你知道，在很多地方，斯金纳的名声已经不如从前。但是如果你分析哈佛整个实验科学的历史，他绝对名列前茅。他的实验非常巧妙，结果常常出人意料，但却极其重要。可以说，这是实验科学所能达到的顶级水平。
What gummed up Skinner's reputation is the developed a case of what I always call Man Lotha Hammer Syndrome. To the Man Lotha Hammer, every problem tends to look pretty much like a nail. And Skinner had one of the more extreme cases in the history of academia. And this syndrome doesn't exempt bright people. It's just a man with a hammer. And Skinner is an extreme example of that. And later, as I get on my list, let's go back and try and figure out why people like Skinner get man with a hammer syndrome.
困扰斯金纳声誉的问题是他得了一种我常称为"锤子人综合症"的病。对于"锤子人"来说，所有问题看起来都像钉子。而斯金纳是学术界历史上最极端的案例之一。这个综合症并不会绕过聪明人。这只是一个带着锤子的人，而斯金纳就是这一现象的极端例子。随后，我们可以回过头来思考一下，为什么像斯金纳这样的人会得"锤子人综合症"。
Incidentally, when I was at the Harvard Law School, there was a professor, naturally at Yale, who was derisively discussed at Harvard, and he used to say, poor old blanchored, he thinks declaratory judgments will cure cancer. That's the way Skinner got. And I know that he got very, he was literary. And he scorned opponents who had any different way of thinking or thought anything else was important. This is not a way to make a lasting reputation if the other people turn out to also be doing something important.
顺便提一下，当我在哈佛法学院时，有一位教授是在耶鲁任教的，哈佛的人常常以讥讽的态度谈论他。他常常说：“可怜的老布兰查德，他以为宣告性判决能治愈癌症。” 就像斯金纳那样，我知道他非常有文学气息，并且对持有不同想法或认为其他事情重要的对手嗤之以鼻。 如果其他人后来证明他们在做的事情也很重要的话，这可不是建立持久声誉的方法。
My second factor is simple psychological denial. This first really hit me between the eyes when a friend of our family had a super athlete, super student son who flew off a carrier in the North Atlantic and never came back. And his mother, who was a very sane woman, just never believed he was dead. And of course, if you turn on the television, you find the mothers of the most obvious criminals. The man could ever diagnose and they all think their sons are innocent. A whole psychological denial. The reality is too painful to bear, so you just distort it until it's bearable. We all do that to some extent. And it's a common psychological misjudgment, because it's terrible problems.
我的第二个因素是简单的心理否认。这种感觉第一次真正让我震惊，是当我们家庭的一位朋友失去了她那位超级运动员、超级学生的儿子。他从北大西洋的一艘航母上起飞后再也没有回来。而他的母亲，一个非常理智的女人，却一直不相信他已经去世。当然，如果你打开电视，你会看到一些罪行显而易见的罪犯的母亲，她们都认为自己的儿子是无辜的。这是一种全面的心理否认。因为现实实在太过痛苦，所以我们扭曲现实，直到可以承受。我们或多或少都会这样做。这是一种常见的心理误判，因为它带来了可怕的问题。
Third, insanity caused bias, both in one's own mind and that of one's trusted advisor, where it creates what an economist called agency costs. Bear my early experience was a doctor who sent bushel baskets full of normal gallbladders down to the Papalogy Lab in a leading hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska. And with that quality control for which community hospitals are famous, about five years after he should have been removed from the staff. He was. And one of the old doctors who participated in the removal was also a family friend. And I asked him, I said, tell me, did he think here's a way for me to exercise my talents? This guy was very skilled technically and and and make a highlighting by doing a few maimings and murders every year along with some frauds. He said, hell no, Charlie. He thought that the gallbladder was the source of all medical evil.
第三，精神错乱会导致偏见，不仅在自己的头脑中，也在值得信任的顾问的头脑中产生偏见，这会造成经济学家所说的“代理成本”。我早期的经历中，有一位医生曾将一篮又一篮正常的胆囊送到内布拉斯加州林肯市一家著名医院的病理实验室。而在社区医院以质控闻名的背景下，这位医生在应该被撤职后大约五年才被免职。其中一位参与他撤职的老医生也是我们的家庭朋友。我问他，“他是不是觉得自己的技术能力很强，可以借此机会在每年搞几次伤害、谋杀和欺诈来展示才能？”他回答：“当然不是，查理。他只是觉得胆囊是所有医学问题的根源。”
And if you really love your patients, you couldn't get that organ out rapidly enough. Now, that's an extreme case. But in lesser strength, it's present in in every profession and in every human being. And it causes perfectly terrible behavior. If you take sales presentations of brokers of commercial real estate and business businesses, I'm 70 years old. I've never seen one. I thought was even within healing distance of objective truth. And if you want to talk about the power of incentives and the power to rationalize terrible behavior, after the defense department had had enough experience with cost plus percentage of cost contracts, the reaction of our republic was to make it a crime for the federal government to write one and not only a crime, but a felony.
如果你真的关心你的病人，你会尽可能快地摘除那个器官。当然，这是一个极端的例子。但是在较小的程度上，这种情况存在于每一个行业和每个人身上，并且导致非常糟糕的行为。举个例子，关于商业房产和企业的经纪人的销售陈述，我已经70岁了，从没见过一个接近客观事实的。如果你想讨论激励的力量以及合理化糟糕行为的能力，当国防部有足够的成本加成合同经验后，我们国家的反应是将向联邦政府授予这种合同定为犯罪，不仅是犯罪，还是重罪。
And by the way, the government's right. But a lot of the way the world is run, including most law firms. And a lot of other places, they've still got a cost plus percentage of cost system. And human nature, with its version of what I call incentive caused bias, causes this terrible abuse. And many of the people who were doing it, you would be glad to have Mary and to your family compared to what you're otherwise going to get. Now there are huge implications from the fact that human mind is put together this way. And the idea is that people who create things like cash registers, which may misbehave your heart, are some of the effective saints of our civilization.
顺便说一下，政府是对的。但世界上很多地方的运作方式，包括大多数律师事务所，仍然在使用一种基于成本加成的体系。而人性带来的所谓“激励导致的偏见”会导致严重的滥用。许多参与其中的人，相比于其他人，你会更愿意让他们加入你的家庭。人类心智的这种运作方式带来了巨大的影响。那些发明像收银机这样东西的人，可以说是我们文明中的有效圣人，尽管它们可能会让你心生不满。
And the cash register was a great moral instrument when it was created. And Patterson knew that by the way. We had a little store and the people were stealing and blind and never made any money. And people sold him a couple of cash registers and it went to profit immediately. And of course, he closed the store and went into the cash register business. And with results, which are. So this is a huge, important thing. If you read the psychology text, you will find that if there are a thousand pages long, there's one sentence. And somehow, in any of cause, bias has escaped the standard survey course in psychology.
最初，当收银机被发明时，它是一个伟大的道德工具。帕特森对此心知肚明。我们曾经营着一家小店，但店里的员工偷窃成风，使得生意亏损。后来有人卖给他几台收银机，店里的情况立刻好转并开始盈利。帕特森于是关闭了这家小店，转行进入了收银机行业，并取得了显著的成功。这是一个非常重要的事情。如果你阅读心理学教材，会发现即便书有一千页，也只有一句提到了这个现象。不知为何，其中的某些偏见被标准的心理学课程所忽略。
Fourth, and this is a superpower in error causing psychological tendency. Bias from consistency and commitment tendency, including the tendency to avoid or promptly resolve cognitive dissonance, includes the self-confirmation tendency of all conclusions, particularly expressed conclusions and with a special persistence for conclusions that are hard won. What I'm saying here is that the human mind is a lot like the human egg. And the human egg has a shut off device. When one sperm gets in, it shuts down so the next one can't get in. The human mind has a big tendency of the same sort.
第四个心理倾向是导致错误的“超级能力”，即来自于一致性和承诺倾向的偏见。这种偏见包括了避免或迅速解决认知失调的倾向，其中也包括对所有结论的自我确认倾向，特别是那些已经表述出来的结论，而且对于那些经过艰苦得出的结论，持有特别的坚持。我在这里想说的是，人类的大脑很像人类的卵子。人类的卵子有一个关闭机制。当一个精子进入时，它就会关闭，以防止下一个精子进入。人类的大脑也有类似的强烈倾向。
And here again, it doesn't just catch ordinary mortals. It catches the deans of physics. According to Max Planck, the really innovative, important new physics was never really accepted by the old guard. Instead, a new guard came along that was less brain blocked by its previous conclusions. And if Max Planck's crowd had this consistency and commitment tendency that kept their old conclusions intact in spite of disconfirming evidence, you can imagine what the crowd that you and I are part of behaves like. And of course, if you make a public disclosure of your conclusion, you're pounding it in to your own head.
这里再次说明，这不仅仅捕捉到了普通人，也包括了物理学界的权威人物。根据马克斯·普朗克的说法，真正创新且重要的新物理学从未被旧派完全接受。相反，是新一代的学者出现，他们不被先前的结论所束缚。如果普朗克和他所属的那一代人有这种倾向，即使面对反驳的证据也坚持旧有结论，你可以想象我们身处的群体会是什么样子。当然，如果你公开披露自己的结论，就等于把这个观点深深植入自己头脑中。
Many of these students that are screaming at us, they aren't convincing us, but they're forming mental chains for themselves because what they're shouting out, they're pounding in. And I think educational institutions that create a climate where too much of that goes on are in a fundamental sense, they're irresponsible institutions. It's very important to not put your brain in chains too young by what you shout out. And all these things like painful qualifying and initiation rituals and all those things pound in your commitments and your ideas. And the Chinese brainwashing system, which was for war prisoners, which was way better than anybody else's, they maneuvered people into making tiny little commitments and declarations. And then they'd slowly build that worked way better than torture.
许多正在对我们大喊大叫的学生，他们并没有真正说服我们，而是在为自己心中形成思想上的枷锁，因为他们喊出来的东西会深深印在自己的脑海里。我认为，那些营造出过多这种氛围的教育机构，从根本上来说是不负责任的。重要的是，不要因为年轻时所喊出的东西而给自己的思想套上枷锁。所有像痛苦的考核和入职仪式之类的东西都会加深你的承诺和观念。而中国的洗脑系统，比任何其他国家的对战俘方式都要好得多，他们利用人们做出一些微小的承诺和声明，然后慢慢地累积，这种方法比酷刑有效得多。
Sixth, bias from Pavlovian association, misconstruing past correlation is a reliable basis for decision-making. I never took, of course, in psychology or economics either for that matter. And but I did learn about Pavlov in high school biology. And the way they taught it, you know, so the dog salivated when the bell rang. So what? You know, nobody made the least effort to tie that to the wide world. Well, through the matter is that Pavlovian association is an enormously powerful psychological force in the daily life of all of us. And indeed in economics, we wouldn't have money without the role of so-called secondary reinforcement, which is a pure psychological phenomenon demonstrated in the laboratory. So practically, I'd say three quarters of advertising works on pure Pavlov.
第六，来自巴甫洛夫式联想的偏见，即误以为过去的关联可以作为决策的可靠根据。当然，我在心理学或经济学方面都没有正式学习过，但我在高中生物课上学过关于巴甫洛夫的内容。他们教授的方式就是，当铃声响起时，狗会流口水。那么又怎样呢？没有人试图将这一现象与更广泛的世界联系起来。然而，事实上，巴甫洛夫式联想在我们的日常生活中是一种极其强大的心理力量。实际上，在经济学中，如果没有所谓的次级强化的作用，我们就不会有货币，这是一种在实验室中得到验证的纯粹心理现象。因此，实际上我想说，大约四分之三的广告都是基于纯粹的巴甫洛夫效应。
I mean, think how association, pure association works. Take Coca-Cola company, we're the biggest shareholder. They want to be associated with every wonderful image, heroics in the Olympics, wonderful music. You name it. They don't want to be associated with presidents, few and roles and so forth. And you've seen a Coca-Cola ad. And the association really works. And all these psychological tendencies work largely or entirely on a subconscious level, which makes them very insidious.
我的意思是，想想纯粹的关联是如何发挥作用的。以可口可乐公司为例，我们是其最大股东。他们希望与各种美好的形象联系在一起，比如奥运会上的英雄事迹、美妙的音乐等等。而他们并不希望与总统、权力等角色联系在一起。你应该看过可口可乐的广告，这种关联确实有效。而所有这些心理倾向大多或者完全是在潜意识层面上起作用的，这使得它们非常难以察觉。
Then you've got Persian messenger syndrome. The Persians really did kill a messenger who brought the bad news. You think that is dead? I mean, you should have seen Bill Paley in his last 20 years. He didn't hear one damn thing. He didn't want to hear. He didn't want to know. It was bad for the messenger to bring Bill Paley things he didn't want to hear. Well, that means that the leader gets in a cocoon of unreality. And it's a great big enterprise. And boy, he makes some dumb decisions in the last 20 years. And Persian messenger syndrome is alive and well.
这段话可以翻译为：
“这就是所谓的波斯信使综合症。波斯人真的杀过带来坏消息的信使。你以为这个现象已经消失了吗？我告诉你，以前在比尔·佩利（Bill Paley）最后的20年里，他根本不听他不想听的东西。任何人给他带来他不想听的消息都是不妙的。这意味着领导者在一种不切实际的幻想中生活。而且这是一个非常庞大的企业。他在最后的20年里确实做出了一些愚蠢的决定。而波斯信使综合症依然存在。”
When I saw some years ago, Arco and Exxon arguing over a few hundred millions of ambiguity in their North Slow treaties before superior court judge in Texas with armies of lawyers and experts on each side. Now, this is a madhatter's tea party. Two engineering style companies can't resolve some ambiguity without spending tens of millions of dollars in some Texas superior court. In my opinion, what happens is that nobody wants to bring the bad news to the executives up the line. The here's a few hundred million dollars you thought you had that you don't. And it's much safer to act like the Persian messenger goes away to hide rather than bring home the news of the battle lost.
几年前，我看到阿科公司和埃克森美孚在德克萨斯州的高等法院争论他们北坡协议中的数亿美元不明确之处，双方都派出了大批律师和专家。这简直就像疯狂帽匠的茶会。两个以工程为主导的公司居然解决不了这些不明确之处，非得在德克萨斯的高等法院里花上数千万美元。我认为，这种情况的发生，是因为没有人愿意把坏消息传递给高管。也就是说，你原以为有的几亿美元，其实并不存在。充当波斯信使后去躲藏，而不是带回战败的消息，似乎更安全。
Talking about economics, you get a very interesting phenomenon that I've seen over and over again in a long life. You've got two products. It's a little complex technical product. Now you think under the laws of economics that a product A costs X. If product Y costs X minus something, it will sell better than if it sells at X plus something. But that's not so. In many cases, when you raise the price of the alternative product, it'll get a larger market share than it would when you make it lower than your competitors product. That's because the bell of Pavlovian bell, ordinarily there's a correlation between price and value, you have an information and efficiency. So when you raise the price, the sales go up relative to your competitor. That happens again and again and again. It's a pure Pavlovian phenomenon. You can say, well, the economists have figured this sort of thing out when they started talking about information and efficiencies.
谈到经济学，你会发现一个我在漫长人生中反复见到的有趣现象。你有两个产品，其中一个是稍复杂的技术产品。按照经济学规律，如果产品 A 的价格是 X，而产品 Y 的价格是 X 减去一些，那么 Y 理应卖得更好。但实际情况并非如此。在许多情况下，当你提高替代产品的价格时，它反而比定价低于竞争对手产品时获得更大的市场份额。这是因为在通常情况下，价格和价值之间存在一定关联，类似于巴甫洛夫效应中的关联。因此，当你提高价格时，产品的销售量相对于竞争对手会增加。这种现象反复出现，是一种纯粹的巴甫洛夫现象。你可以说，经济学家已经通过讨论信息和效率方面的内容看出了其中的一些东西。
But that was fairly late in economics that they found such an obvious thing. And of course, most of them don't ask what causes the information and efficiencies. Well, one of the things that causes it is pure old Pavlov and his dog. Now you've got bias from Schenarian Association, operant conditioning, where you give the dog a reward and pound in the behavior that preceded the dog's getting the award. And of course, Schenar was able to create superstitious pigeons by having rewards come, by accident with certain occurrences. And of course, we all know people who are the human equivalents of superstitious pigeons. That's a very powerful phenomenon. And of course, operant conditioning really works. I mean, the people in the center who think that operant conditioning is important are very much right. Just the scanner over did it a little.
这在经济学上是很晚才发现的，这样一个显而易见的事情。当然，大多数人并没有去追问信息和低效的原因是什么。其中一个原因其实可以追溯到老掉牙的巴甫洛夫和他的狗。现在，我们有来自斯金纳关联效应的偏见，也就是操作性条件反射，当你给狗一个奖励时，它会强化在得到奖励之前的行为。当然，斯金纳通过在某些事件上偶然给予奖励，成功地制造出了迷信的鸽子。而我们都认识一些相当于迷信鸽子的人类。这是一种非常强大的现象。而且，操作性条件反射确实有效。那些强调操作性条件反射重要性的人是相当正确的，只不过斯金纳有点过于夸大了。
Where you see in business just perfectly horrible results from psychological, psychologically rooted tendencies is in accounting. If you take Westinghouse, which blew up to $3 billion, free tax at least, loaning developers to build hotels and virtually 100% loans. Now you say any idiot knows there's one thing you don't like it to developer or another you don't like it to hotel. And to make 100% loans, the developer is going to build a hotel. But this guy, he probably was an engineer or something and he didn't take psychology anymore and I did. And he got out there in the hands of these select salesmen operating under their version of incentive caused bias, where any damn way of getting Westinghouse to do it was considered normal business. And they just blew the.
在商业领域，你常常会看到一些由于心理根源倾向而导致的非常糟糕的结果，而这些结果在会计方面尤为明显。以西屋公司为例，他们至少在税前亏损了30亿美元，因为他们向开发商提供了几乎100%的贷款来兴建酒店。现在你可能会说，任何一个傻瓜都知道有两件事是不能做的：一个是不要给开发商贷款，另一个是不想贷款给酒店。尤其是在贷款达到100%的情况下，开发商肯定会去建酒店。但是这个人可能是个工程师之类的，所以他没有再学习心理学，而我则学了。他走到了这些掌握挑选的销售人员手中，而这些销售人员被他们特有的激励偏见所左右，他们会认为任何让西屋公司接受这笔交易的方式都是正常的生意手段。最终他们让公司处于糟糕的境地。
That would never have been possible if the accounting system hadn't been such that for the initial phase of every transaction it showed wonderful financial results. So people who have loose accounting standards are just inviting perfectly horrible behavior in other people. And it's a sin. It's an absolute sin. If you carried bushel baskets full of money through the ghetto and made it easy to steal, that would be a considerable human sin because you'd be causing a lot of bad behavior and the bad behavior would spread. Similarly, an institution that gets sloppy accounting commits a real human sin and it's also a dumb way to do business as Westinghouses so wonderfully proved.
如果没有一个在交易初期就显示出美好财务结果的会计系统，这一切都不可能发生。所以，那些会计标准松懈的人，实际上是在招致他人的不良行为。这是一种罪，是一种绝对的罪。如果你在贫民区提着装满钱的篮子，让人很容易偷走，那将是一种重大的道德罪恶，因为你会导致很多不良行为，而这种不良行为会传播开来。同样地，一个会计松散的机构是在犯下真实的人性罪恶，而且这也是一种愚蠢的商业做法，正如Westinghouse公司已经充分证明的一样。
Oddly enough, nobody mentions, at least nobody I've seen, what happened with Joe Jat and Kitter Peebottie. The truth of the matter is the accounting system was such that by punching a few buttons the Joe Jets of the world could show profits and profits that showed up and things that resulted in rewards and esteem and every other thing that human beings. Well, the Joe Jets are always with us and they're not really to blame in my judgment at least. But that bastard who created that foolish accounting system, who, so far as I know, has not been played alive, ought to be seventh.
奇怪的是，至少在我所见的人中，没有人提到乔·贾特和基特·皮博迪到底发生了什么。事情的真相是，由于会计系统的设计方式，只需按几个按钮，像乔·贾特这样的人就能显示出利润，并因此获得奖励、荣誉和其他一切人类所追求的东西。至少在我看来，这样的“乔·贾特”总是存在的，他们并不是罪魁祸首。但那个设计出这种愚蠢会计系统的家伙，至少据我所知，他还没有受到责罚，实在应该受到严厉的惩罚。
What I ask from reciprocation tendency, including the tendency of one on a role to act as other persons expect, well here again, CLDN does a magnificent job at this and you're all going to be given a copy of CLDN's book and if you have as much sense as I think you do, you will immediately order copies for all of your children and several of your friends. You will never make a better investment. It is so easy to be a patsy for what he calls the compliance practitioners of this life. But in any rate, reciprocation tendency is a very, very powerful phenomenon and CLDN demonstrated this by running around a campus and he asked people to take juvenile delinquents to the zoo. And it was a campus and so one in six actually agreed to do it.
我想表达的是互惠倾向，包括在某种角色上的人倾向于按他人期待行事的这种现象。CLDN在这方面做得非常出色，你们都会得到一本CLDN的书。如果你像我认为的那样有智慧，你会立刻为你的每个孩子和一些朋友订购几本。这将是你做过的最好的投资。生活中很容易因所谓的“合规专家”而成为“老好人”。无论如何，互惠倾向是一个非常、非常强大的现象。CLDN通过在校园里进行实验展示了这一点，他请求人们带领少年犯去动物园。当时是在一所大学里，所以每六个人中就有一个同意去做这件事情。
And after he'd accumulated this statistical output, he went around on the same campus and he asked other people, he said, Jay, would you devote two afternoons a week to taking juvenile delinquents somewhere and suffering great for yourself to help them? And there he got 100% of the people to say no. But after he'd made the first request, he backed off a little and he said, well, would you at least take them to the zoo one afternoon? He raised the compliance rate from a third to a half. He got three times the success by just going through the little astralotten back off. Now the human mind on a subconscious level can be manipulated that way and you don't know it.
在收集了这些统计结果之后，他走在同一个校园里，向其他人询问。比如，他说：“嘿，你愿意每周花两个下午带不良少年出去，自己忍受一些困难来帮助他们吗？”结果，100%的人都拒绝了。但在提出第一个要求后，他退了一步，问：“那你至少愿意抽一个下午带他们去动物园吗？”通过这种策略，他把同意率从三分之一提高到了二分之一。通过这种小小的让步策略，他的成功率提高了三倍。人类的潜意识可以被这样操控，而你甚至可能察觉不到。
Well, I always use the phrase you're like a one-legged man in an ask-egging contest. You are really giving a lot of quarter to the external world that you can't afford to give. And on this so-called role theory where you tend to act in the way that other people expect, that's reciprocation if you think about the way society is organized. Guy named Zimbardo had people at Stanford divide into two pieces, one with the guards and the other with the prisoners. And they started acting how roles as people expected. He had to stop the experiment after about five days. He was getting into human misery and breakdown and pathological behavior. I mean, it was awesome.
好的，我常用一个说法来形容这种情况，你就像一个独腿的人参加了一个踢屁股比赛。你真的把太多的注意力放在了外部世界上，这是你负担不起的。而关于所谓的角色理论，就是你倾向于按照别人对你的期待来行动，这其实是一种社会组织中的互惠。一个叫津巴多的人曾经在斯坦福大学进行过一个实验，把人分成两组，一组是狱警，另一组是囚犯。结果他们开始按照人们对他们的预期来扮演角色。实验进行到大约第五天，他就不得不停下来，因为人们开始经历痛苦、崩溃和病态行为。这个实验真是令人震惊。
However, Zimbardo is greatly misinterpreted. It's not just reciprocation tendency and role theory that caused that. It's consistency and commitment tendency. Each person is he acted as a guard or a prisoner. The action itself was pounding in the idea. Wherever you turn this consistency and commitment tendency is affecting you. In other words, what you think may change what you do, but perhaps even more important, what you do will change what you think. You can say everybody knows that. I don't want to tell you I didn't know it well enough early enough.
然而，津巴多的观点被严重误解了。这不仅仅是互惠倾向和角色理论导致的，还有一致性和承诺倾向。每个人都在扮演一个角色，无论是守卫还是囚犯。这个行动本身就不断强化这个观念。无论你怎么选择，这种一致性和承诺倾向都在影响着你。换句话说，你的想法可能会改变你的行为，但更重要的是，你的行为也会改变你的想法。这是众所周知的道理。我只想说，我没有在足够早的时候充分理解这一点。
Eight, this is a lot of pollution and then recopement wisely talked about this. By us from over influenced by social proof, that is the conclusions of others, particularly under conditions of natural uncertainty and stress. And here, one of the cases the psychologist uses, Kitty Genovesi, were all these people, of 50, 60, 70 of them just sort of sat and did nothing while she was slowly murdered. Now, one of the explanations is that everybody looked at everybody else and nobody else was doing anything. And so there's automatic social proof that the right thing to do is nothing.
这段话的中文翻译是：
八，污染问题非常严重，随后Recompement对此进行了明智的讨论。我们往往容易受到社会影响的左右，特别是在自然不确定性和压力下，我们容易依赖他人的结论。在这里，心理学家提到一个案例，就是Kitty Genovese事件。当时大约有五、六十甚至七十个人在那里，无所作为地看着她被慢慢谋杀。对此的其中一个解释是，所有人都在互相观察，发现其他人都没有行动，于是就默认不采取行动是正确的做法，这就是自动化的“社会认同”现象。
That's not a good enough explanation for Kitty Genovesi in my judgment. That's only part of it. There are microeconomic ideas and gang lost ratios and so forth that also come into play. I think time and time again in reality, psychological notions and economic notions interplay. And the man who doesn't understand both is a damn fool. Big shot, businessmen get into these waves of social proof. Do you remember some years ago when one of our company bought a fertilizer company and every other major oil company practically ran out and bought a fertilizer company?
在我看来，这对Kitty Genovesi来说不是一个充分的解释。这只是其中的一部分。还有一些微观经济学的概念、帮派损失比率等等也在其中起作用。我认为，在现实中，心理学概念和经济学概念不断地相互影响。不理解这两者的人简直是愚蠢。那些大企业家常常陷入这种社会认同的浪潮中。你还记得几年前，我们的一家公司收购了一家化肥公司，几乎所有其他的大型石油公司也纷纷跑去收购化肥公司吗？
And there was no more damn reason for all these oil companies to buy fertilizer companies. But they didn't know exactly what to do and the Vex on was doing it. It was good enough for mobile or vice versa. And of course, I think they're all gone now. It was a total disaster. Now let's talk about efficient market theory. A wonderful economic doctrine that had a long vogue in spite of the experience of virtue half away. In fact, one of the economists who won, he shared a Nobel Prize.
这些石油公司没有理由去收购化肥公司。但是他们不知道该做什么，而Vex公司正在这么做。这就足够让Mobil公司也跟着这么做了，反之亦然。当然，我觉得这些公司现在可能都不存在了。这完全是个灾难。现在我们来谈一下有效市场理论。这一经济学说在很长一段时间内都很流行，尽管Virtue Half Away的经历证明了它的问题。事实上，其中一位经济学家甚至因此获得了诺贝尔奖。
And as he looked at virtue half away year after year, which people would throw in his faces saying, maybe the market isn't quite as efficient as you think, he said, well, it's a two-segma event. And then he said, we were a three-segma event. And then he said, we were a four-segma event. And he finally got up to six segments, better to add a segment that didn't change the theory just because the evidence comes in, definitely. And of course, when this share of a Nobel Prize went into money, he managed to money himself, he sank like a stone.
他年复一年地看着美德逐渐消退，人们总是对他说：“也许市场没有你想象的那么有效率。”当时他回应说：“这只是一个两西格玛事件。”然后他说，我们经历了一个三西格玛事件，接着又说我们经历了一个四西格玛事件。最后，他甚至提到六西格玛事件。他倾向于不断添加‘西格玛’，而不是因为证据出现而改变理论。当然，当他获得部分诺贝尔奖的奖金时，他也尝试进行投资，结果却像石头一样迅速沉了下去。
If you think about the doctrines I've talked about, namely one, the power of reinforcement. After all, you do something and the market goes up and you get paid and rewarded and applauded and what have you. Meaning, a lot of reinforcement, if you make a bet on a market and the market goes with you. Also, their social proof. I mean, the prizes in the market are the ultimate form of social proof, reflecting what other people think.
如果你考虑我谈到的那些理论，首先是强化的力量。毕竟，你做了一些事情，而市场上涨了，你获得了报酬、奖励和赞赏等等。这意味着，当你在市场上下注，而市场走势如你所愿时，会得到很多正强化。另外，还有社会认同。我指的是，市场上的奖赏是社会认同的终极形式，反映了其他人的看法。
And so the combination is very powerful. Why would you expect general market levels to always be totally efficient, say even in 1973, 4th, the pit, or in 1972 or whatever it was, when the nifty-fifty were in their heyday? If these psychological motions are correct, you would expect some waves of irrationality, which create general levels to their inconsistent with reason. What made these economists love the efficient market theory is the math was elegant and after all math is what they'd learned to do.
因此，这种结合是非常强大的。你为什么会期望一般市场水平总是完全有效的，比如在1973年的第四季度，交易所，或者在1972年，或者无论什么时候，当“漂亮五十”股票正处于鼎盛时期时？如果这些心理因素是正确的，你就会预料到一些非理性的波动，会导致市场整体水平与理性不符。让这些经济学家热衷于有效市场理论的原因是这个理论的数学表达很优雅，毕竟数学是他们所学会做的事情。
The man with a hammer, every problem tends to look pretty much like a nail. The alternative truth was a little messy and they'd forgotten the great economists came, who, I think, said better to be roughly right than precisely wrong. Bias from contrast caused distortions of sensation, perception, and cognition. Here the great experiment that sealed in he does in his class, he takes three buckets of water. One's hot, one's cold, and one's room temperature.
人手里拿着锤子，看所有问题都像钉子。另一种观点有点混乱，他们忘记了有位伟大的经济学家曾说过，与其精确地错误，不如大致地正确。对比造成的偏见会影响感觉、知觉和认知。在这个著名的实验中，他在课堂上做了这样的展示：准备三个水桶，一个装热水，一个装冷水，一个装常温水。
He has the students, that he's left hand in the hot water, and he's right hand in the cold water. Then he has them remove the hands and put them both in the room temperature bucket. And of course, with both hands in the same bucket of water, one seems hot and other seems cold. Because the sensation apparatus of man is over influenced by contrast. It has no absolute scale. It's got a contrast scale in it. And it's a scale with quantum effects in it too. It takes a certain percentage change before it's noticed. Maybe you've had a magician remove your watch. I certainly have without your noticing it. It's the same thing. He's taking advantage of contrast type troubles in your sensory apparatus.
他让学生们把左手放进热水里，右手放进冷水里。然后，他让他们把双手取出来，放进一个室温的水桶里。于是，尽管两只手都在同一个水桶里，一只手感觉热，另一只手感觉冷。因为人的感觉系统受对比的影响很大，它没有绝对的标准，它是一个带有对比尺度的系统，还有量子效应的存在。只有当变化达到一定比例时，才会被注意到。也许你曾有过被魔术师取走手表，而自己却没有察觉到的经历。我当然有过。这也是利用你的感觉系统中对比效应问题的一种方式。
But here the great truth is that cognition mimics sensation. And the cognition manipulators mimic the watch removing magician. In other words, people are manipulating you all day long on this contrast phenomenon. You've got the real estate broker and you've got the room that's been transferred into your town. And the first thing you do is you take the room out to the two of the most awful overpriced houses you've ever seen. And then you take the room to some moderately overpriced house and then you stack them. And it works very well, which is why the real estate salesmen do it. And it's always going to work. Many accidents of life can do this to you. And it can ruin your life.
这里的一个重要真理是，认知模拟感知。而认知操控者就像拿走你手表的魔术师。换句话说，人们整天都在利用这种对比现象操控你。就像房地产经纪人，他们会把你带到一个新区域。首先，他们会让你看两个非常昂贵让人不满的房子，然后再带你看一个中等价格高估的房子，这样一对比，你就会觉得第三个房子相对划算。这种策略非常有效，这也是为什么房地产销售人员会这样做的方法总是奏效。生活中许多意外事件也可能这样影响你，甚至可能毁掉你的人生。
In my generation when women lived at home until they got married, I saw some perfectly terrible marriages made by highly desirable women because they lived in terrible homes. And I've seen some terrible second marriages, which were made because they were slight improvements over an even worse first marriage. You think you're immune from these things and you laugh and I want to tell you you aren't. And my favorite analogy, I can't vouch for the accuracy of. I have this worthless friend I like to play bridge with. And he's a total intellectual amateur that lives on an inherited money. But he told me once something I really enjoyed hearing.
在我那一代，女性通常在家住到结婚为止。我见过一些非常有吸引力的女性，因为她们生活在糟糕的家庭环境中而走入了相当糟糕的婚姻。我也见过一些糟糕的二婚，那些只是比第一次更糟糕的婚姻略微好一点。你可能觉得自己不会遭遇这些情况，还会因此发笑，但我想告诉你，你也可能会遇到。我喜欢的一个比喻，我无法保证它的准确性。我有一个“不靠谱”的朋友，我喜欢和他一起打桥牌。他就是个整天靠继承的财产生活的业余知识分子。但是有一次他说了一个让我很喜欢听的东西。
He said, Charlie, he says if you throw a frog into very hot water, the frog will jump out. But if you put the frog in room temperature water and just slowly heat the water up, the frog will die there. Now I don't know whether that's true about a frog, but it sure is held true about many of the businessmen I know. And there again it is the contrast phenomena. These are hot shot high-powered people. I mean these are not fools. If it comes to you in small pieces, you're likely to miss. So you have to, if you're going to be a person of good judgment, you have to do something about this warp in your head where it's so missled by a mere contrast.
他（查理）说，如果你把青蛙扔进非常热的水里，青蛙会跳出来。但如果你把青蛙放在室温的水里，慢慢地加热，它就会死在那里。我不知道这个关于青蛙的说法是不是真的，但我确实看到过很多商人就像这样。这也就是对比效应的表现。这些人是精英，是非常有能力的人，不是傻瓜。如果事情慢慢发生，你可能会忽略。所以，如果你想成为一个判断力好的人，你必须处理好头脑里的这种偏差，否则就容易被简单的对比误导。
By us from over-influence by authority, well here are the Milgram experiments that's caused. I think there have been 1600 psychological papers written about Milgram. He had a person posing as an authority figure, trick ordinary people into giving what they had every reason to expect was heavy torture by electric shock to perfectly innocent fellow seasants. And the experiment has been, he was trying to show that why Hitler succeeded in a few other things. And so it is really caught the fancy of the world. Partly it's so politically correct.
由我们避免过多受到权威的影响，这就是著名的米尔格伦实验的原因。我想大约有1600篇心理学论文讨论了米尔格伦的研究。他让一个人假扮成权威人物，诱导普通人对完全无辜的同伴施加他们认为是严重折磨的电击。这个实验旨在解释为什么希特勒会在某些事情上取得成功。因此，这个实验引起了全世界的关注，部分原因是它在政治上非常具有敏感性。
And over-influence by authority has another very, you'll like this one. You got a pilot in a co-pilot. The pilot is the authority figure. They don't do this in airplanes, but they've done it in cellulators. They have the pilot do something where the co-pilot who's been trained in cellulators a long time. He knows he's not to allow the plane to crash. They have the pilot to do something where an idiot co-pilot would know the plane was going to crash. But the pilot's doing it and the co-pilot is sitting there and the pilot is the authority figure. 25% of the time the plane crashes. I mean, this is a very powerful psychological tendency. It's not quite as powerful as some people think and I'll get to that later.
权威的过度影响还有另一个非常有趣的例子。你会喜欢这个的。在飞机上有一个机长和一个副机长。机长通常是权威人物。这种实验不是在真正的飞机上做的，而是在模拟器中进行的。实验中，机长会做一些事情，让经验丰富的副机长——他在模拟器里受过长期训练，明确知道自己绝不能让飞机坠毁——产生警觉。即使一个完全没有经验的副机长也会察觉飞机即将坠毁，但因为这是机长在操作，而他是权威人物，结果副机长只会坐在那里不采取行动。令人震惊的是，25%的情况下，飞机真的会坠毁。这说明权威带来的心理影响是非常强大的。虽然这个影响没有一些人想象的那么强大，但我稍后会详细解释。
Bias from deprival superreactions syndrome, including bias caused by a present or threat and scarcity, including threat and removal of something almost possessed but never possessed. Here I took the munger dog. The lovely, harmless dog. The only way to get that dog to bite you was to try and take something out of its mouth after it was already there. Any of you who've tried to do takeaways and labor negotiations will know that the human version of that dog is there in all of us.
剥夺过度反应综合症的偏见，包括由于目前或威胁中的稀缺性造成的偏见，这种偏见还包括对几乎拥有但未实际拥有的事物的威胁和移除。在这里，我用芒格的狗作为例子。这只可爱、无害的狗。唯一能让这只狗咬你的办法，就是在它口中已经有东西的时候，试图把东西拿走。任何进行过收购或劳资谈判的人都知道，我们每个人身上都有这种狗的「人类版本」。
And I have a neighbor, a predecessor, a little island or have a house. And his next door neighbor put a little pine tree on it. It was about three feet high and it turned its 180 degree view of the harbor into 179 and 3 quarters. Well, they had a blood feud like they had fields in the coyes and it went on and on and on. I mean, people are really crazy about minor decrements down. And then if you act on them, you get into reciprocation tendency because you don't just reciprocate affection, you reciprocate animosity. And the whole thing can escalate.
我有一个邻居，他之前在一个小岛上有一栋房子。他的隔壁邻居种了一棵小松树，大约三英尺高。本来有180度的海港景观，现在变成了179度和四分之三。结果，他们就像科伊岛上人们之间的世仇一样，陷入了一场旷日持久的纷争。人们对于这些微小的影响真是很疯狂。而且如果你对此采取行动，就会陷入相互报复的陷阱，因为人们不仅会回报好感，也会回报敌意，事情就会不断升级。
And so huge insanity's come from just subconsciously overweighing the importance of what you're losing or almost getting and not getting. And the extreme business case here was new Coke. A Coca-Cola has the most valuable trademark in the world where the major shareholder, I mean, I think we understand that trademark. Coke has armies of brilliant engineers, lawyers, psychologists, advertising executives and so forth. And they had a trademark on a flavor and they'd spent better part of 100 years getting people to believe that trademark had all these intangible values too.
因此，极大的疯狂往往来自于潜意识中过度看重你正在失去或差点得到却未能获得的东西的重要性。在商业领域，这一极端案例就是新可乐事件。可口可乐拥有世界上最有价值的商标之一，主要股东非常了解这一点。可口可乐有一群才华横溢的工程师、律师、心理学家和广告主管等。他们拥有一种口味的商标，并且花了将近100年让人们相信该商标还具有许多无形的附加价值。
And people associated it with a flavor. And so they were going to tell people not that it was improved because you can't improve a flavor. A flavor is a matter of taste. I mean, you may improve a detergent or something, but the only thing you're going to make a major change in a flavor. I mean, so they got this huge, deprival super-reaction syndrome. Pepsi was within weeks of coming out with old Coke in a Pepsi bottle, which would have been the biggest fiasco in modern times. Perfect, full perfect insanity.
人们把它与一种口味联系在一起，因此他们打算告诉人们这不是因为改进而改变的，因为口味无法改进。口味是个人喜好的问题。你可以改进一种清洁剂之类的东西，但要真正改变一种口味是很困难的。他们因此遭遇了一个巨大的反弹反应综合症。当时百事可乐差一点就要推出装在百事瓶子里的老可乐，如果真的发生了，那将成为现代史上最大的失败事件之一，完全的疯狂之举。
And by the way, both guys that I have a keel or just wonderful about it, I mean, they just joke. I mean, they don't. Keel always says, I must have been a way on vacation. He participated in every single, he's a wonderful guy. And by the way, it goes, this is a wonderful smart guy, an engineer. Smart people make these terrible boners. How can you understand the primal super-reaction syndrome? But people, I mean, people do not react symmetrically to loss and gain.
顺便说一下，我提到的这两个人都非常棒，他们的幽默感很好。他们总是开玩笑。Keel总是说，“我可能那时候在度假吧。”他实际上参与了所有事情，是个很好的人。顺便提一下，这个人也是个非常聪明的工程师。即使聪明的人也会犯这种低级错误。很难理解这种原始的强烈反应综合症。但人们对得失的反应并不是对称的。
Now, maybe I have a great bridge flare like Zachowski does, but that's a trained response. Three people subconsciously affected by their inborn tendencies. Buies from envy jealousy. Well, envy jealousy made what, two out of the ten commandments. Those of you who have raised siblings, you know, or tried to run a law firm or investment bank or even a faculty. I've heard Warren say a half a dozen times it's not greed that drives the world, but envy.
现在，也许我像扎科夫斯基那样有着出色的打桥牌的天赋，但那是经过训练的反应。有三个人下意识地受到他们天生倾向的影响。由于嫉妒和羡慕产生的问题。好吧，嫉妒和羡慕在十诫中占了两条。那些有兄弟姐妹的人都知道，或者试图经营一个律师事务所、投资银行甚至是大学教职工团队的人也都了解。我听沃伦说过不下六次，推动世界运转的并不是贪婪，而是嫉妒。
Here again, you go through the psychology survey courses. You go to the index, envy jealousy, thousand page book. It's blank. There's some blind spots in academia, but it's an enormously powerful thing. And it operates to a considerable extent on a subconscious level. And anybody who doesn't understand it is staking on defects he shouldn't have. Buies from chemical dependency. Well, we don't have to talk about that. We've all seen so much of it, but it's interesting how it always causes moral breakdown if there's any need.
在这里，你再次参加了心理学调查课程。你查阅目录，寻找与嫉妒和羡慕相关的内容，这本书有一千页，而相关部分却是空白的。在学术界有些盲点，但嫉妒和羡慕是极其强大的情感，并且在很大程度上以潜意识的方式运行。任何不理解它的人其实是在冒一些本不该有的风险。至于化学依赖的问题，我们不用多谈，因为我们都见过太多这类例子。但有趣的是，如果有道德失范的危险，它往往会导致道德崩溃。
And always involves massive denial. It aggravates what we talked about earlier in the aviator case. The tendency to distort reality so that it's indirable. Buies from misgambling compulsion. Well here's Skinner made the only explanation you'll find in the standards psychology survey course. He of course created a variable reinforcement rate for his pigeons, his mice. And he found that that would pound in the behavior better than any other reinforcement pattern.
这总是涉及到巨大的否认。这加剧了我们早些时候在飞行员案例中讨论的问题，也就是扭曲现实以使其变得可接受的倾向。这种行为源于不当赌博的冲动。在心理学标准课程中，Skinner 提出了解释。他为他的鸽子和小鼠创建了一个可变的强化率，发现这种方法比其他任何强化模式都更能巩固行为。
And he says, aha, I've explained why gambling is such a powerful addictive force in a civilization. I think that is to a very considerable extent true. But being Skinner, he seemed to think that was the only explanation. But the truth of the matter is that the divisors of these modern machines and techniques know a lot of things that Skinner didn't know. For instance, a lottery, you have a lottery where you get your number by lot. And then somebody draws a number by lot. It gets lousy play.
他说：“啊哈，我已经解释了为什么赌博在文明中是一种如此强大的成瘾力量。”我认为这在很大程度上是对的。但是，作为斯金纳，他似乎认为这是唯一的解释。但事实是，这些现代赌博机器和技术的设计者懂得很多斯金纳不知道的东西。例如，一个彩票游戏，你通过抽签得到一个号码，然后有人通过抽签开彩。这样的游戏吸引力不大。
You get a lottery where people get to pick their number. Get big play. Again, it's this consistency and commitment thing. People think that if they have committed to it, it has to be good. And the minute they picked it themselves, it gets an extra validity. After all they thought it and they acted on it. And then you take slot machines. You get bar, bar, lemon. That happens again and again and again. You get all these near misses.
你参与了一个人们可以自己选号码的彩票。这个情况带来了巨大的投入。再一次，关键在于持续性和承诺。人们认为一旦他们投入其中，就一定要有好的结果。而一旦号码是他们自己选的，他们就会觉得更有道理。毕竟，这是他们自己想的，也是他们自己行动的。
接下来，我们来看老虎机。每次你都是差一点就中了，比如出现了两个相同的图案，紧接着是一个不一样的。这种情况一再发生，你总是差那么一点点。
Well, that's deprival super-reactions syndrome. And boy, to the people who create the machines understand human psychology. And if you've got the high IQ crowd, they've got poker machines where you make choices. So you can play Blackjack, so to speak, with the machine. It's wonderful that we've done with our computers to ruin a civilization. And the NDRA, misgambling compulsion is a very, very powerful and important thing. Look at what's happening to our country, every Indian, there's a reservation, every river town. And look at the people who were ruined by it with the aid of their stock robbers and others.
好吧，这就是所谓的剥夺超反应综合症。那些制造机器的人确实懂得人类心理。如果你是高智商人群，他们就有让你做选择的老虎机。因此，你可以说是和机器一起玩二十一点。我们用计算机所做的事情真是太棒了，几乎可以毁掉一个文明。不可否认，赌博成瘾是一个非常强大且重要的问题。看看我们的国家正在发生的事情——每个印第安保留地、每个沿河小镇。还要看看那些在股票骗子和其他人的帮助下被赌博毁掉的人。
And again, if you look in the standard textbook of psychology, you'll find credibly nothing on it except maybe one sentence talking about Skinner's rats. That is not an adequate average of the subject. Dias from liking distortion, including the tendency to especially like oneself, one's own kind and one's own idea structures, and the tendency to be especially susceptible to being misled by someone like. Disliking distortion. Dias from that. There was a separate call of liking distortion and the tendency not to learn appropriately from someone dislike.
再说一次，如果你查看标准的心理学教材，你几乎找不到关于这个主题的信息，除了可能提到斯金纳的老鼠的某一句话。这远不足以全面覆盖这个主题。喜欢的扭曲带来的偏见，包括倾向于特别喜欢自己、喜好自己所属的群体和自己的思想结构的倾向，以及尤其容易被喜欢的人误导的倾向。厌恶的扭曲也从中产生。这就是一种单独的喜欢扭曲，以及无法适当从自己不喜欢的人那里学习的倾向。
Well, here again, we've got hugely powerful tendencies. And if you look at the wars in part of the Harvard Law School, as we say here, you can see that very brilliant people get into this almost pathological behavior. And these are very, very powerful basic subconscious psychological tendencies, or at least partly subconscious. Now let's get back to B.F. Skinner, man with a hammer syndrome revisited. Why is man with the hammer syndrome always present? Well, he stopped to think about it. It's a study of caused bias.
那么，在这里，我们又看到了极其强大的倾向。如果你看看哈佛法学院的一些内部斗争，不难发现一些非常聪明的人会陷入几乎病态的行为中。而这些都是非常强大且根深蒂固的潜意识心理倾向，或至少有部分是潜意识的。现在让我们回到B.F.斯金纳，他进一步探讨了“手握锤子综合症”。为什么这种综合症总是存在呢？他停下来思考了这个问题，这是对偏见成因的研究。
His professional reputation is all tied up with what he knows. He likes himself and he likes his own ideas. And he's expressed them to other people, consistency and commitment tendency. I mean, you have four or five of these elementary psychological tendencies, combining to create this man with a hammer syndrome. And once you realize that you can't really buy your thinking done, partly you can, but largely you can't in this world. You've learned a lesson that's very useful in life.
他的职业声誉完全依赖于他的知识。他很欣赏自己，也喜欢自己的想法。而且他把自己的想法传递给其他人，展现出一种一致性和承诺的倾向。我指的是，你可以看到有四五种这种基本的心理倾向，结合在一起，产生了这种"手握铁锤，看什么都像钉子"的综合症。一旦你意识到，在这个世界上，你不能真的依赖别人来替你思考，部分可以，但很大程度上还是不行的。学会了这个道理，在生活中是非常有用的。
George Warrantjarr said and had a character say in the Dr. Stolema, in the last analysis every profession is a conspiracy against the ledi. But he didn't have it quite right because he's not so much a conspiracy as it is a subconscious psychological tendency. The guy tells you what is good for him. He doesn't recognize that he's doing anything wrong any more than that doctor did when he was pulling out all those normal gallotters.
乔治·沃伦杰在《Stolema博士》中让一个角色说过，归根结底，每个职业都是对大众的阴谋。但他说得不完全对，因为这与其说是一个阴谋，不如说是一种潜意识的心理倾向。这个人告诉你什么对他有利。他并没有意识到自己在做错事，就像那个医生在摘除所有正常的胆囊时一样。
And he believes that his own idea structures will cure cancer. He believes that the guardians, that the demons that he's the guardian against are the biggest demons and the most important ones. And in fact, they may be very small demons compared to the demons that you face. So you're getting your advice in this world from your paid advisor with this huge load of gasoline bias. And what do you, and only two ways to handle it, you can hire your advisor and then just apply a windage factor.
他相信自己的理念能够治愈癌症。他相信自己守护的那些恶魔才是最重要、最大的恶魔。然而，实际上，这些恶魔可能相比你要面对的恶魔来说非常渺小。所以，你在这个世界上得到的建议其实来自一个充满偏见的顾问。而你只有两种方法来处理这种情况：要么聘请这个顾问，然后再自己加以判断修正。
Like I used to do when I was a rifle shooter. I just did just for so many miles an hour wind. And or you can learn the basic elements of your advisor's trade. You don't have to learn very much by the way because you learn just a little and then you can make him explain why he's right. And those two tendencies will take part of the warp of the thinking you've tried to hire done. By and large it works terribly.
就像我以前做步枪射手时那样。我只是跟着时速多少英里的风调整。或者你可以学习顾问行业的一些基本要素。你其实不需要学很多，因为你只需学一点，然后让他解释为什么他是对的。这两种倾向会成为你雇用他人思考方式的一部分。总体来说，这效果很差。
I have never seen a management consults report in my long life that didn't end with the following paragraph. What this situation really needs is more management consulting. Never once. I always turn to the last page. Of course, Merchor Atherway doesn't hire them. So I only do this on sort of a voyeuristic basis. Sometimes I'm in a nonprofit where some idiot hires one. Seventeen.
我活了这么久，从来没有见过一份管理咨询报告不以以下段落结尾的：这个情况实际需要更多的管理咨询。一次也没有。我总是会翻到最后一页。当然，梅科尔·阿瑟韦公司并不会雇用他们。所以，我对这种事情只是抱着一种窥探的心态。有时候我在一个非营利组织里会看到某个傻瓜雇了一个管理咨询公司。十七次。
Bias from the non-mathematical nature of the human brain in its natural state, as it deals with probabilities employing crude heuristics and is often misled by mere contrast. Attendancy to overweight, conveniently available information and others, psychologically, rude, misthinking tendencies on this list. When the brain should be using the simple probability mathematics of Fairmaton Pascal, applied to all reasonably obtainable and correctly weighted items of information that are of value in predicting outcomes.
人脑在其自然状态下，由于非数学性质，对于概率的处理依赖于粗略的启发法，这常常会因为简单的对比而产生误导。人脑倾向于过度重视方便获取的信息及其他心理上不够准确的思维习惯。而实际上，大脑应该使用费尔马和帕斯卡的简单概率数学，来应用于所有能够合理获得并正确加权的信息上，以便更有效地预测结果。
The right way to think is the way Zach Ozer plays bridge. It's just that simple. When your brain doesn't naturally know how to think the way Zach Ozer knows how to play bridge. You notice I put in that availability thing. There I'm mimicking some very eminent psychologists, Dan Menig, who raised the idea of availability to a whole heuristic of misjudgment. They are very substantially right.
正确的思考方式，就像Zach Ozer打桥牌的方式一样。就这么简单。当你的大脑自然而然地不知道如何像Zach Ozer打桥牌那样去思考时。你会注意到我提到了那个“可得性”概念。在这里，我是在模仿一些非常著名的心理学家，比如Dan Menig，他把“可得性”看作是一种错误判断的启发式方法。他们的观点很有道理。
Ask the Coca-Cola Company, which has raised availability to a secular religion, if availability changes behavior, it will bring a hell of a lot more Coke if it's always available. I mean, availability does change behavior and cognition. Nonetheless, even though I recognize that on a plug to Varsky Conman, I don't like it for my personal system except as part of a greater subsystem. It just doesn't work. You have to think that the way Zach Ozer plays bridge isn't just the lack of availability that distorts your judgment. All the things on this list distort judgment. I want to train myself to kind of mentally run down the list instead of just jumping on availability. That's why I stated the way I do. In a sense, these psychological tendencies make things unavailable. If you quickly jump to one thing and then because you've jumped to it, the consistency and commitment tendency makes you lock in, boom, that's error number one. Or if something is very vivid, which I'm going to come to next, that will really pound in.
问问可口可乐公司吧，他们把商品的可得性提升到了类似世俗宗教的高度。如果可得性影响行为，那么如果可乐随时可得，人们会买更多的可乐。我的意思是，可得性确实会改变行为和认知。然而，尽管我承认在推广Varsky Conman时强调了这一点，但我个人的系统并不偏爱这种策略，除非它是更大系统的一部分。它仅靠自己行不通。你必须考虑到，Zach Ozer打桥牌的方式不仅仅是可得性的缺乏扭曲了你的判断。这个清单上的所有事物都会扭曲判断。我想训练自己去理性地浏览清单，而不是直接跳到可得性上。这就是我这样表达的原因。从某种意义上说，这些心理倾向使一些东西变得不可得。如果你迅速跳到一件事上，然后因为你已经跳到它上面，一致性和承诺的倾向会让你坚持下去，砰，这就是第一个错误。或者如果某件事非常生动，我接下来会讲，这将真正对你产生影响。
And the reason that the thing that really matters is now unavailable. And what's extra vivid wins is, I mean, the extra vividness creates the unavailable. So I think it's much better to have a whole list of things that caused you to be less like Zach Ozer. Now, it is just to jump on one factor. Here, I think we should discuss John Gutfreend. This is a very interesting human example, which will be taught in every decent professional school for at least a full generation. Gutfreend has a trusted employee and it comes to light, not through confession, but by accident, that the trusted employee is light like hell to the government and manipulated the accounting system and it was really equivalent to forgery.
原因是，现在真正重要的东西已经不可获取。而更加鲜明的东西往往取得胜利，我的意思是，这种额外的鲜明感造成了无法获取。所以我认为，列出一系列让你不那么像扎克·奥泽的原因要好得多，而不是仅仅关注其中一个因素。在这里，我觉得我们应该讨论一下约翰·古特弗林德。这是一个非常有趣的人类案例，将在未来至少一代时间里被每一个像样的专业学校教授。古特弗林德有一个值得信赖的员工，而让人震惊的是，这个员工并不是通过自白，而是意外地被发现，不仅对政府扯谎，还操纵了会计系统，这实际上等同于伪造。
And the man immediately says, I've never done it before. I'll never do it again. It was an isolated example. And of course, it was obvious that he wasn't trying to help the government as well as himself. As he thought the government had been dumb enough to pass a rule that he'd spoken against. And after all, if the government's not going to pay attention to bond trader, it's all on what kind of a government can it be. And at any rate, this guy has been part of a little clique that has made way over a billion dollars for Solomon in a very recent past. And it's a little handful of people. So there are a lot of psychological forces at work. And you know the guy's wife. He's right in front of you and there's human sympathy and he's sort of asking for your help which is a form which encourages reciprocation.
那个男人立刻说，我以前从来没做过这样的事，我以后也不会再做了。这只是一个孤立的例子。当然，很明显，他不仅仅是为了帮助政府，更是为了自己。因为他认为政府愚蠢到通过了他反对的政策。毕竟，如果政府都不听债券交易员的意见，那算什么样的政府呢？此外，这个人最近和一个小团体一起为所罗门公司赚了超过十亿美元。这只是少数几个人所为。因此，有很多心理因素在起作用。你也认识这个人的妻子，他就站在你面前，人之常情让你对他产生同情心，他某种程度上是在寻求你的帮助，而这种方式也鼓励了互惠。
And there are all these psychological tendencies are working. Plus the fact he's part of a group that has made a lot of money for you. At any rate, a good friend does not cashier the man. And of course, he had done it before and he did do it again. Well now you look as though you almost wanted him to do it again. Or God knows what you look like, but it isn't good. And that simple decision destroyed John Goodfrey. And it's so easy to do. Now let's think it through like the bridge player like Zach Hauser. You find an isolated example of a little old lady in the Seas candy company, one of our subsidiaries getting into the till.
所有这些心理倾向都在起作用。此外，他是一个为你赚了很多钱的团体的一员。无论如何，一个好朋友不会解雇这个人。当然，他以前也这样做过，而且的确又这样做了。现在，你看起来几乎像是希望他再这么做一次。或者说，天知道你看起来是什么样子，但这并不好。那个简单的决定毁了约翰·古德弗雷。这么做很容易。现在让我们像桥牌玩家扎克·豪瑟那样思考这个问题。你发现我们的子公司之一——Seas糖果公司的一个孤立例子，一个老太太在偷公司的钱。
And what does she say? I never did it before. I'll never do it again. This is going to ruin my life. Please help me. And you know her children and her friends. And she's been around 30 years and standing by him. The candy counter was swollen ankles and your old lady isn't that glorious alive. And you're rich and powerful and there she is. I never did it before. I don't want to never do it again. Well how likely is it that she never did it before? If you're going to catch 10 embezzlements a year, what are the chances that any one of them applying what Tversky and Common call baseline information will be somebody who only did it this once.
她说什么呢？“我以前从未这么做过，我再也不会这样做了。这会毁了我的生活，请帮帮我。”你认识她的孩子和朋友，她跟随他已经有30年了。糖果柜台前是肿胀的脚踝，而你的老太太却依然精神焕发。你有钱有势，而她却在那里。我以前从未这么做过，我不想再做了。但她真的以前从未这样做过吗？如果你每年能抓到10起贪污案件，那么根据Tversky和Common所说的基线信息，哪个人是仅此一次犯错的几率有多大呢？
And the people who have done it before and are going to do it again, what are they all going to say? Well the history of the Seas candy company, they always say, I never did it before. I'm never going to do it again. And we cashier them. It would be evil not to. Because terribly behavior spreads. Remember, what was it, Serbco? I mean you let that stuff, you got social proof, you got incentive caused by it, you got a whole lot of psychological factors that will cause the evil behavior to spread. And pretty soon to hold down, your place is rotten, the civilization is rotten. It's not the right way to behave.
之前做过这种事情的人，现在还打算再做一次，他们都会说些什么呢？关于Seas糖果公司的历史，他们总是说，“我之前从来没这样做过，我以后也不会再这样做。”然后我们就把他们解雇。如果我们不这样做，那才是邪恶的行为。因为不当行为会传播。记住是什么，Serbco（塞尔布公司）吗？如果你放任这种事情发生，就会有社会认同的效应，导致各种激励因素，很多心理因素都会让这种恶劣的行为扩散。不久之后，你的公司就变质了，社会也变质了。这不是我们应该遵循的行为方式。
I will admit that I have, when I knew the wife and children, I have paid severance pay when I fire somebody, protecting a mistress on an extended foreign trip. It's not the adultery I mind, it's the embezzlement. But there, I wouldn't do it, we're good for indebted, we've been cheating somebody else on my behalf. There, I think you have to cashier, but if they're just stealing from you and you get rid of them, I don't think you need the last ounce of vengeance. But I don't think you need any vengeance, I don't think vengeance is much good.
我承认，当我认识那位妻子和孩子的时候，我曾在解雇某人时支付了遣散费，以保护一个情人在一次长途的国外旅行中。这不是我介意通奸的问题，而是挪用公款。不过在那种情况下，我不会去做，我们还算不错地偿还了债务，我们是在帮助我的情况下欺骗了别人。对于这种情况，我认为必须严惩。然而，如果他们只是偷你的东西而你打算解雇他们，我认为无需过分报复。事实上，我认为不需要报复，因为报复并没有多大用处。
Now we come by us from over influence by extra vivid evidence. Here's one, I'm at least $30 million poor as I sit here giving this little talk because I once bought 300 shares of a stock and the guy called me back and said I've got 1,500 more. I said will you hold it for 15 minutes while I think about it? CEO of this company, I have seen a lot of vivid peculiarities in a long life, but this guy said a world record. I'm talking about the CEO and I just misweight it. A few of the matters, his situation was foolproof, who is soon going to be dead.
现在我们因为一些额外生动的证据而受到过度影响。我来说一个故事，我坐在这里进行这个小演讲时，至少比以前少了3000万美元，因为我曾经买了300股某公司的股票。当时，有人给我打电话说他还有1500股。我说，“你能不能等我15分钟，我考虑一下？”我见过很多奇特的事情，但这个公司的CEO创下了世界纪录。我说的是这位CEO，我只是没有正确评估他的情况。本来他的情况看似万无一失，但结果却让我亏损不小。
I turned down the extra 1,500 shares and that's now cost me $30 million and that's life in the big city. It wasn't something where stock was generally available. So it's very easy to misweight the vivid evidence and a good friend did that when he looked into the man's eyes and forgave the colleague. And 22, stress-induced metal changes, small and large temporary and permanent. Oh no, no, no, I've skipped one. Mental confusion caused by information not arrayed in the mind and theory structures creating sound generalizations developed in response to the question why.
我拒绝了额外的1,500股股票，现在这让我损失了3,000万美元，这就是大城市的生活。那不是一般会有的股票，所以很容易错误地估计生动的证据。我有个好朋友就是这样，当他看着那个人的眼睛并原谅了同事时。还有第22条，压力引起的金属变化，包括小的和大的、临时的和永久的。哦不不不，我跳过了一条。由于信息没有在大脑中按照理论结构排列而导致的精神混乱，而这些理论结构是为了解释为什么的问题而发展出可靠的概括。
Also mis-influenced from information that apparently but not really answers the question why. Also failure to obtain deserved influence caused by not properly explaining why. We all know people who flunk and they try and memorize and they try and spot back and they just doesn't work. The brain doesn't work that way. You've got to array facts on the theory structures answering the question why. If you don't do that you just you cannot handle the world.
受到误导的信息影响，这些信息表面上似乎回答了“为什么”，但实际上并没有。同时，由于没有正确解释“为什么”，导致没有获得应有的影响力。我们都见过这种人，他们考试不及格，就拼命去死记硬背，但这样行不通。大脑不是这样运作的。你必须在理论的结构上排列事实来回答“为什么”。如果不这样做，你就无法有效地理解和应对这个世界。
Now we get to first thing. It was the general council of Solomon when a good friend made his big error and forced a new better. He told a good friend you have to report this as a matter of morality and prudent business judgment. He said it's probably not illegal. It's probably no legal duty to do it but you have to do it as a matter of prudent conduct and proper dealing with your main customer. He said that to a good friend at least two or three occasions and he stopped and of course the persuasion failed and when a good friend went down for a start and went with him and it ruined a considerable part of four signs life.
现在我们来说第一件事。这是关于所罗门集团的一次重要会议，当时一个好朋友犯了一个大错误，并被迫做出改正。他告诉这位好朋友，你必须出于道德和审慎的业务判断来报告这件事。他说这可能不算非法，可能没有法律责任去做，但你必须出于谨慎行为和妥善处理与你主要客户关系的理由这样做。他至少两三次对这位好朋友说过这些话，但最终劝说失败了。当这位好朋友遇到麻烦时，他陪着一起受到了影响，这破坏了他人生中相当重要的一部分。
A four-time was a member of the Harvard Law Review who made an elementary psychological mistake. You want to persuade somebody you really tell them why and what do we learn in lesson one in satis really matter. He should have done vivid evidence really works. He should have told a good friend you are likely to ruin your life and disgrace your family. Lose your money and is most your worth this. I know both men that would have worked. The four-stine funk elementary psychologist very sophisticated brilliant lawyer. Don't you do that. It's not very hard to do you know just do.
曾经是哈佛法律评论成员的一个人犯了一个基本的心理错误。你想要说服某人，就需要告诉他们"为什么"。在第一课中我们学到，满意真的很重要。他应该使用生动的证据，这样才有效。他本可以告诉一个好朋友：“你可能会毁了自己的生活，给家庭带来耻辱，失去钱财和几乎所有的价值。”我知道，对两个人来说，这会奏效。但这位四次参与的成员只是一个熟练而聪明的律师，没有做到这点。这样做并不难，你只需要去做。
Remember that the choir is terribly important. Other normal limitations of sensation memory cognition and knowledge well time for that. Stress induced mental changes. Here my favorite example is the great Pavlov and he had all these dogs and cages which had all been conditioned into changed behaviors. The great Lenin grad flood came and it went right up and the dogs in a cage and the dog was as much stress as you can imagine a dog ever having. The lawyer was seated in time to say some of the dogs and Pavlov noted that they had a total reversal of their conditioned personality.
请记住，合唱团非常重要。至于其他正常的感觉、记忆、认知和知识的限制，这些在这里不需要多说。这里说的是由压力引起的心理变化。我最喜欢的例子是伟大的巴甫洛夫，他有很多狗和笼子，这些狗都经过训练后表现出改变了的行为。后来，发生了列宁格勒大洪水，水淹到了笼子里，给狗带来了极大的压力。最后，有人及时赶到，救出了部分狗，而巴甫洛夫注意到，这些狗的条件反射性格发生了完全的逆转。
It would be a great scientist he was. He spent the rest of his life giving nervous breakdowns to dogs and he learned a hell of a lot that I regard as very interesting. I have never known any Freudian analyst or knew anything about the last work of Pavlov. I never met a lawyer who understood what Pavlov found out with those dogs and anything to do with programming and deep programming and cults and so forth. Any amount of elementary psychological ignorance is out there in high levels is very September.
他会成为一位伟大的科学家。他把余生都用来研究使狗产生紧张崩溃的实验，并从中学到了很多令我感到非常有趣的东西。我从未见过任何一位弗洛伊德派的心理分析师，也不了解巴甫洛夫最后的研究成果。我也从未遇到过了解巴甫洛夫对那些狗所发现的任何事情或者与编程、深度编程、邪教等有关知识的律师。在高层次上存在很多基础心理学的无知，这是非常明显的。
Then we have got other common mental illnesses and declines, temper and permanence and quitting the tendency to lose ability through disuse. I have got mental and organizational confusion from say something syndrome. Here my favorite thing is the honey bee. Honey bee goes out and finds the nectar and he comes back and he does a dance that communicates to the other bees where the nectar is and they go out and get it. Some scientists who was clever like B.F. Skinner decided to do an experiment. He put the nectar straight up, way up, well in a natural setting there is no nectar where the hell straight up.
我们还有其他常见的精神疾病和衰退，比如脾气变化和持久性，退出以及因长期不用而失去能力的倾向。我因为“讲话综合症”而感到精神和组织上的混乱。我最喜欢的例子是蜜蜂。蜜蜂出去找到花蜜，然后回来跳一支舞，用来告诉其他蜜蜂花蜜的位置，然后其他蜜蜂就会出去采集。一位像B.F.斯金纳一样聪明的科学家决定做一个实验。他将花蜜放在得非常高的上方，而在自然环境中，蜜蜂在哪里能找到在正上方的花蜜呢？
And the poor honey bee doesn't have a genetic program that is adequate to handle what he now has to communicate and you think the honey bee would come back to the hive and slink into a corner. But he doesn't. He comes into the hive and does this incoherent dance. All my life I've been dealing with the human equivalent of that honey bee. And it's a very important part of human organization to set things up so the noise and the reciprocation and so forth of all these people who have what I call say something syndrome. Don't really affect the decisions.
可怜的蜜蜂没有足够的基因程序来应对它现在需要传达的信息，你可能会认为蜜蜂会回到蜂巢里，在角落里悄悄待着。但事实并非如此。它回到蜂巢后，会跳起一种混乱的舞蹈。我一生中都在处理和这种蜜蜂相似的人类情况。这是人类组织中一个非常重要的部分，即如何设置机制，使得所有这些人的噪音、回应等——我称之为“想说点什么综合症”——不会真正影响决策。
Now the time has come to ask two or three questions. This is the most important question in this whole talk. What happens when these standard psychological tendencies combine? What happens when the situation or the artful manipulation of man causes several of these tendencies to operate on a person toward the same end at the same time? The clear answer is the combination greatly increases power to change behavior compared to the power of merely one tendency acting alone. Examples are Tupperware Parties. Tupperware has now made billions of dollars out of a few manipulative psychological tricks.
现在是时候提出两三个问题了。而其中最重要的问题是：当这些标准的心理倾向结合在一起时会发生什么？当某种情况或人为的巧妙操控使几个心理倾向同时朝着同一个方向作用于某个人时，结果会如何？明确的答案是，这种组合大大增强了改变行为的力量，相比之下，单靠一种倾向的力量要小得多。实例之一就是特百惠聚会。特百惠通过一些操控心理的小技巧，如今已经赚取了数十亿美元。
It was so slow that directors of Justin Dart's company resigned when he crammed it down his board's throat. And he was totally right by the way, judge by economic outcomes. Mooney conversion methods. Boy, that they work. He just combines four or five of these things together. The system of aquaulics anonymous, a 50% no drinking rate, outcome when everything else fails. A 50% aquaver system that uses four or five psychological systems at once toward I might say a very good end.
翻译成中文并简化表达：
这件事情进展得非常慢，以至于Justin Dart公司的董事们在他强行推进时纷纷辞职。不过，从经济成果来看，他的做法完全正确。Mooney转换方法确实有效。他只是把四、五个方法结合在一起使用。匿名戒酒系统有50%的戒酒成功率，在其他方法都失败时能见效。AquaVer系统结合了四、五种心理方法，达到了非常好的目的。
The Milgram experiment. See, Milgram, it's been widely interpreted as merubidians. But the truth of the matter is that the experimenter who got the students to give the heavy shocks in Milgram, he explained why it was a false explanation. We need this to look for scientific truth and so on. That greatly changed the behavior of the people. The number two, he worked them up. Tiny shot, little larger, little larger. So commitment and consistency tendency. And the contrast principle.
米尔格拉姆实验。你看，米尔格拉姆实验被广泛地解释为“merubidians”。但事实是，让学生在实验中施加强烈电击的实验者，他解释了为什么这是一个错误的解释。我们需要通过这种方式来寻找科学真相等等。这极大地改变了人们的行为。第二个因素是，他逐渐增加了强度：从微小的电击开始，逐渐加大。这涉及到承诺和一致性倾向以及对比原则。
We're both working in favor of this behavior. So again, it's four different psychological tendencies. That's when you get these lollipalooza effects. You will almost always find four or five of these things working together. When I was young, there was a who'd done it. He will always said, share, share, love, fame. And you should search for in life is the combination. It's the combination is likely to do you in. Or if you're the inventor of Tupperware parties, it's likely to make you enormously rich.
我们都在共同促进这种行为。有四种不同的心理倾向，当这些倾向结合在一起时，就会产生所谓的“糖果混搭效应”。你几乎总能发现四到五种这样的倾向同时发挥作用。当我年轻的时候，有个侦探小说的角色总是说，要分享、分享、爱、名声。在生活中你应该寻找的是这种组合。这种组合可能会击垮你，或者如果你是那种发明了塑料保鲜盒派对的人，这种组合也可能会让你变得非常富有。
If you can stand shaving when you do it. Then one of my favorite cases is the McDonald Douglas airliner evacuation disaster. The government requires that airliners pass a bunch of tests, wellness evacuation. Get everybody out, I think 90 seconds or something like that. It's some short period of time. The government has rules, make it very realistic, so on and so on. You can't select nothing but 20-year-old athletes. Do evacuate your airliner.
如果你能忍受剃须，那让我讲讲我最喜欢的一个案例：麦克唐纳道格拉斯飞机疏散灾难。政府要求飞机通过一系列测试，包括疏散测试。在疏散测试中，你需要在很短的时间内（大约90秒左右）把所有人撤离飞机。政府有些规则要让测试非常现实，比如不能只挑选20岁的运动员来进行飞机疏散测试。
So McDonald Douglas schedules one of these things in a hanger. And they make the hanger dark. And the concrete floor is 25 feet down. And they got the little rubber shoots. And they got all these old people. And they ring the bell and they all rush out. And then in the morning, when the first test is done, they create 20 terrible injuries that would go off the hospitals. And of course they scheduled another one for the afternoon. By the way, they didn't meet the time schedule either, in addition to causing all the injuries.
麦克唐纳·道格拉斯公司在机库里安排进行这样的实验。他们把机库弄得很黑，地面是25英尺深的混凝土地面，还有一些橡胶滑道。很多老年人参与实验。当铃声响起时，他们都冲出去。到早上第一个实验完成时，已经导致了20起严重受伤事件，这些人需要被送往医院。而且，他们不仅导致了这些伤害，也未能按时完成实验。在下午，他们又安排了一次实验。
Well, so what do they do? They do it again in the afternoon. Not to create 20 more injuries. And one case of a severed spinal column was permanent, unfixable paralysis. Here engineers, these are people, this is thought over through in a big bureaucracy. Again, it's a combination of attendance. Authorities told you to do it. They told you to make it realistic. You've decided to do it. You've decided to do it twice. And Sandy, of course, buys.
那么，他们到底在做什么呢？他们在下午又重复了一次。并不是为了再制造20起伤害。其中一个严重脊柱损伤的病例导致了永久性、不可修复的瘫痪。在这里，工程师们是经过深思熟虑的大机构中的一员。再说一次，这是一种出勤的结合。是当局要求你这样做的，他们要求你让它看起来真实。你决定这么做，并决定做两次。当然，桑迪也参与了。
If you pass, you save a lot of money. You've got to jump this hurdle before you can sell your new airliner. Again, three, four, five of these things work together and it turns human brains into mush. And maybe you think this doesn't happen in picking investments. If so, you're living in a different world than I am. Finally, the open-out cry auction. The open-out cry auction. It's just made to turn the brain into mush. You get social proof. The other guy is bidding. You get reciprocation tendency. You get deprival super-reaction center on the thing is going away. I mean, it's just absolutely designed to manipulate people into idiotic behavior.
如果你通过了，你就能节省很多钱。在你能出售新客机之前，你必须跨过这个障碍。再说一遍，三四五个这样的因素一起作用时，会让人脑变得混乱。也许你认为在选择投资时不会发生这种情况。如果是这样的话，那你和我的看法就截然不同。最后，我们来谈谈公开喊价拍卖。公开喊价拍卖就是为了让人头脑混乱而设计的。你会受到社会认同的影响：别人也在竞价。你会感受到互惠倾向，还有因为物品即将消失而产生的极端反应中心。我是说，这些机制完完全全是为了操控人们做出愚蠢行为而设计的。
Finally, the institution of the board of directors of the major human-American company. Well, the top guy is sitting there. He's an authority figure. He's doing ass-in-line things. You look around the board. Nobody else is objecting. Social proof. It's okay. Reciprocation tendency. He's raising the director's fees every year. He's flying you around in the corporate airplane to look at interest in plants or whatever in hell they do. And you go. And you really get extreme dysfunction as a corrective decision-making body in the typical American board of directors.
最后，这家大型人类-美国公司的董事会制度。好了，那位高层人物就坐在那里。他是一个权威人物，做着符合利益的事情。你环顾董事会，其他人都没有反对。社会认同，很正常。互惠倾向。他每年都在提高董事的薪酬。他用公司的飞机带你去各地视察工厂或者其他任何他们做的事情。于是你去了。结果呢，通常在美国的董事会中，这样的纠正决策机构变得极其无效。
They only act again, the power of incentives. They only act when they get so bad that starts reflecting making them look foolish or threatening legal liability to them. That's Munger's rule. I mean, there are occasional things that don't follow Munger's rule. But by and large, the board of directors is a very ineffective director if the top guy is a little nuts, which, of course, frequently happens. The second question. Isn't this as of standard psychological tendencies improperly topological compared to the system with Uglid? That is, aren't there overlaps and can't some items on the list be derived from combinations of other items? The answer to that is plainly yes.
他们只是在激励力量的推动下再次采取行动。他们只有在情况变得非常糟糕，影响到他们显得愚蠢或威胁到他们的法律责任时才会行动。这就是芒格的法则。当然，有些情况并不符合芒格法则，但大体而言，如果最高领导人有点不正常，董事会通常是非常无效的管理者，而这种情况常常发生。第二个问题是，这种标准的心理倾向是不是相对于以Uglid为标准的系统来说，不太精准？也就是说，这些心理倾向之间是否有重叠，一些清单上的项目是否能通过其他项目的组合得出？答案显然是肯定的。
Three, what good is in the practical world as the thought system indicated by the list? Isn't practical benefit prevented because these psychological tendencies are programmed into the human mind by broad evolution? So we can't get rid of broad evolution. I mean, the combination of genetic and cultural evolution, but mostly genetic. Well, the answer is the tendencies are partly good and indeed probably much more than bad otherwise they wouldn't be there. By and large, these rules of thumb have worked pretty well for man given his run into mental capacity. And that's why they were programmed in by broad evolution.
第三，在实际世界中，这些心理倾向所关联的思维系统有什么好处呢？这些心理倾向是由广泛的进化编程到人类大脑中的，难道这不阻碍了实际的好处吗？所以我们无法摆脱广泛的进化，我是指基因和文化的共同进化，但主要是基因方面的。我的意思是，这些倾向有部分是好的，如果不是比坏的要多得多，它们就不会存在。总的来说，考虑到人类的智力水平，这些经验法则对人类来说一直运作得相当不错。这正是为什么它们被广泛进化编程进来。
Anyway, they can't be simply washed out automatically and they shouldn't be. Nonetheless, the psychological thought system described is very useful in spreading wisdom and good conduct. And one understands it and uses it constructively. Here's some examples. General bronze communication practices designed oil refineries with spectacular skill and integrity. He had a very simple rule. Remember I said why is important? You got fired in the broad company. You had to have five doubles. You had to tell who what you wanted to do with where and when and you had to tell him why.
无论如何，这些问题不能被简单地自动解决，也不应该这样。尽管如此，所描述的心理思维体系在传播智慧和良好行为方面非常有用。如果一个人理解并能建设性地运用它，那会大有裨益。这里有一些例子。通用青铜公司在设计石油精炼厂时展现了非凡的技艺和诚信。他有一个非常简单的原则。记得我说过原因重要吗？如果你在这家公司被解雇了，你必须遵循五个W原则：你得告诉他谁、什么、在哪里、什么时候以及为什么要这么做。
And if you wrote a communication and left out the why, you got fired because bronze knew it's complicated building in our refiner. Blow up all kinds of things happen. He knew that his communication system worked better if you always told him why. That's a simple discipline. And boy does it work. Two, the use of simulators in pilot training. Here again, abilities attenuate with disuse. The simulator is God's gift because you can keep them fresh. The system of alcoholics anonymous. That's certainly a constructive use of somebody understanding psychological tendencies. I think they just bundered into it as a matter of fact.
如果你写了一封交流信件却遗漏了“为什么”，就会被解雇，因为Bronze知道建设我们的精炼厂很复杂，各种问题可能会爆发。他明白，如果每次都告诉别人“为什么”，他的沟通系统会更有效。这是一种简单的规矩，而且确实有效。
其次是飞行员训练中模拟器的使用。能力如果不使用就会减弱，模拟器如同上帝的恩赐，因为它可以让技能保持新鲜。
最后是匿名戒酒会，这显然是对心理倾向的一种建设性利用。我认为他们实际上无意中发现了这个方法。
So you can regard it as kind of an evolutionary outcome. But just because they blundered into it doesn't mean you can't invent it's equivalent when you need it for a good purpose. Clinical training in medical schools. Here's a profoundly correct way of understanding psychology. The standard practice is watch one, do one, teach one. Boy does that pound in what you want pound it in. Again, the consistency and commitment, Timothy. And that is a profoundly correct way to teach clinical medicine.
所以，你可以把这看作是一种进化的结果。但他们偶然得到了这个结果，并不意味着你在需要的时候不能发明出它的等价物来实现一个好的目的。在医学院的临床培训中，这是一个深刻正确的理解心理学的方式。标准的做法是：先看一次，然后做一次，最后教别人一次。这个方法确实能强化你想要强化的东西。再说一次，这种连贯性和承诺，非常重要。而这也是一种深刻正确的教学临床医学的方法。
The rules of the US constitutional convention. Totally secret, no vote until a final vote. Then just one vote on the whole constitution. Very clever psychological rules. And if they had a different procedure, everybody would have been pushed into a corner by his own pronouncements and his own oracle or any so on and no recorded votes until the last one. And they got it through by a whisker with those wise rules. We wouldn't have had the constitution if our forefathers hadn't been so psychologically acute and look at the crowd we got now.
美国制宪会议的规则是完全保密的，在最终投票之前不进行任何投票。最后只对整个宪法进行一次投票。这是一种非常巧妙的心理规则。如果采用不同的程序，每个人都会被自己之前的言论和观点推到一个角落，没有记录投票，直到最后一次投票。而正是这些明智的规则让宪法以微弱的优势通过了。如果我们的先辈们在心理上没有那么敏锐，我们就不会拥有宪法。看看我们现在的人群。
Six, the use of granny's rule. I love this. One of the psychologists who works with the center gets paid a fortune running around America and teaches executives to manipulate themselves. Now granny's rule is you don't get the ice cream unless you eat your carrots. Well granny was a very wise woman. That is a very good system. And so this guy, very young and psychologist, he runs around the country telling executives to organize their day. So they force themselves to do what's unpleasant and important by doing that first and then rewarding themselves with something they really like doing. He is profoundly correct.
六，使用奶奶的规则。我很喜欢这一点。与中心合作的一位心理学家靠这个赚了很多钱，他在美国各地奔走，教高管们如何自我管理。奶奶的规则是：“不吃胡萝卜，就不能吃冰淇淋。” 奶奶是个非常聪明的人，这是个非常好用的系统。这位年轻的心理学家在全国各地告诉高管们如何安排他们的一天。他建议他们先强迫自己去做那些不愉快但重要的事情，然后再用自己真正喜欢做的事情来奖励自己。他的观点是完全正确的。
Seven, the Harvard Business School's emphasis on decision trees. When I was young and foolish I used to laugh at the Harvard Business School. I said, they're teaching 28 year old people that high school algebra works in real life. We're talking about elementary probability. But later I wised up and I realized that it was very important that they do that and better late than never.
这段话的大意是：第七点，哈佛商学院对决策树的重视。当我年轻且无知的时候，我常常嘲笑哈佛商学院。我说，他们居然教28岁的成年人用中学代数知识来解决现实生活中的问题。而我们讨论的是基础概率。但后来我变得成熟，我意识到，他们这样做非常重要，而且“亡羊补牢，犹未为晚”。
Eight, the use of post mortems at Johnson & Johnson. And most corporations, if you make an acquisition and it works out to be a disaster, all the paperwork and presentations that caused the dumb acquisition that we made are quickly forgotten. You got denial, you got everything in the world. You got Pavlovian, Association Tenants and nobody wants to even be associated with the damn thing or even mention it. Johnson & Johnson, they make everybody revisit their old acquisitions and wade through the presentations. That is a very smart thing to do. And by the way, I do the same thing routinely.
翻译为中文：第八，强生公司使用事后分析。在大多数公司中，如果进行了一次收购但最终成为了一场灾难，导致我们做出错误收购决定的文件和演示材料会很快被遗忘。出现了否认，出现了各种问题，也有条件反射的关联谁也不想跟这事有任何瓜葛，甚至不愿提起。然而，强生公司会让每个人重新审视他们过去的收购，并重新查看那些演示材料。这是一种非常聪明的做法。顺便说一句，我也会经常这样做。
Nine, the great example of Charles Dyerwin is he avoided confirmation bias. Dyerwin probably changed my life because I'm a biography nut. And when I found out the way he always paid extra attention to the disconfirming evidence and all these little psychological tricks, I also found out that he wasn't very smart by the standards, the ordinary standards of human acuity. Yet there he is buried in Westminster Abbey. That is not where I am going to tell you. And I said, my God, here is a kind of, by all objective evidence, it is not nearly as smart as high amities in Westminster Abbey. He must have tricks I should learn.
查尔斯·达尔文是一个很好的例子，因为他能够避免确认偏误。达尔文可能改变了我的一生，因为我对传记狂热。当我了解到他总是特别关注那些反驳自己的证据，以及他使用的那些小心理技巧时，我发现其实以普通人的标准来看，他并不是特别聪明。然而，他被安葬在威斯敏斯特教堂。我不会告诉你我会去那里。但我心想，天哪，这个人按所有客观证据来看，并没有威斯敏斯特教堂中的那些杰出人物那么聪明。他一定有一些我应该学习的技巧。
And I started wearing little hair shirts like Dyerwin to try and train myself out of these subconscious psychological tendencies that cost so many errors. It didn't work perfectly as you can tell when listening to this talk. But it would have been even worse if I hadn't done what I did. And you can know these psychological tendencies and avoid being the patsy of all people that are trying to manipulate you to your disadvantage like Sam Walton. Sam Walton will let a purchasing agent take a handkerchief from a salesman.
我开始像迪尔文一样穿小马衬衫，试图训练自己消除那些导致许多错误的潜意识心理倾向。正如你在这次谈话中可以听出来的，这并没有完全奏效。但如果我没有这样做，情况可能会更糟。你可以了解这些心理倾向，避免成为那些试图利用你处于不利地位的人（如山姆·沃尔顿）的“冤大头”。例如，山姆·沃尔顿甚至会允许采购员从销售员那拿一块手帕。
He knows how powerful the subconscious reciprocation tendency is. That is a profoundly correct way for Sam Walton to behave. Then there's the Warren Buffett rule for open out cry options. Don't go. We don't go to the closed bed options too because they, that's a counterproductive way to do things ordinarily for a different reason, which Zach Hauser would understand.
他知道潜意识中的互惠倾向有多强大。这是山姆·沃尔顿行为的一个非常正确方式。然后提到沃伦·巴菲特对于公开喊价期权的规则：不要参与。我们也不参与密闭式期权，因为这通常是一种不利的做事方式，扎克·豪瑟对此会理解。
For what special knowledge problems lie buried in the thought system indicated by the list? Well, one is paradox. Now we're talking about a type of human wisdom that the more people learn about it, the more attenuated the wisdom gets. That's an intrinsically paradoxical kind of wisdom. But we have paradox and mathematics and we don't give up mathematics. I say damn the paradox. This stuff is wonderfully useful.
这个列表所展示的思维体系中隐藏着什么特殊的知识难题呢？其中一个就是悖论。这里我们谈到的是一种人类智慧类型：人们越了解这种智慧，它似乎就越变得稀薄。这是一种本质上具有悖论性的智慧。但是，我们在数学中也遇到了悖论，我们并没有因为这些放弃数学。我认为，就算有悖论，这些东西依然极其有用。
And by the way, the granny's rule when you apply it to yourself is sort of a paradox and a paradox. The manipulation still works even though you know you're doing it. And I've seen that done by one person to another. I drew this beautiful woman as my dinner partner a few years ago. And I'd never seen her before. I was, she married to a prominent Angelino. And she sat down next to me and she turned her beautiful face up and she said, Charlie, she said, what one word accounts for your remarkable success in life.
顺便说一下，当你把“奶奶的规则”应用到自己身上时，这有点像一个悖论。即使你知道自己在操控，操控却依然奏效。我见过一个人这样对待另一个人。几年前，我在一次晚宴中抽签得到了这样一位美丽的女士作为我的晚餐伙伴。我以前从未见过她。她已经嫁给了一位有名的洛杉矶人。她坐在我旁边，把她美丽的面孔朝向我，问道：“查理，你用一个词来形容你在生活中非凡成功的秘诀是什么？”
Now I knew I was being manipulated and that she'd done this before. And I just loved it. I, I, I never see this woman without a little lift in my spirits. And by the way, I told her I was rational. You'll have to judge yourself whether that's true. I, I may be demonstrating some psychological tendency I hadn't planned on demonstrating. How should the best parts of psychology and economics interrelated and enlightened economists mind?
现在我知道我被操控了，而且她以前也这么干过。我却乐在其中。每次见到她，我的心情总会有些好转。顺便说一下，我告诉她我是讲道理的。不知道你认为这是否属实。我可能正在表现出一些自己没有料想到的心理倾向。心理学和经济学的精华应该如何相互联系，并启发经济学家的思维呢？
Two views. That's the thermodynamics model. You know, you can't derive thermodynamics from, from Newtonian gravity and, and laws of mechanics, even though it's a lot of little particles interacting. Here's this wonderful truth that you can sort of develop on your own, which is thermodynamics. And some economists and I think Milton Friedman is in this group, but I may be wrong on that. Sort of like the thermodynamics model. I think Milton Friedman, who has Nobel Prize, is probably a little wrong on that. I think the thermodynamics analogy is over-strained. I think knowledge from these different sciences have to be reconciled to eliminate conflict.
这是关于热力学模型的两种观点。你知道，无法仅从牛顿引力和力学定律推导出热力学，即使它涉及到许多微小粒子的相互作用。这是一个可以独立发展的美妙真理，那就是热力学。一些经济学家，比如米尔顿·弗里德曼（我认为他可能属于这个群体，但我可能错了），也喜欢用类似热力学的模型。我认为米尔顿·弗里德曼，虽然他获得了诺贝尔奖，但在这方面可能有些错误。我觉得热力学的类比被过度使用了。不同科学领域的知识需要协调起来，以消除冲突。
After all, there's nothing in thermodynamics that's inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics and gravity. So I think that some of these economic theories are not totally consistent with other knowledge and they have to be bent. And I think that these behavioral economics are economists are probably the ones that are bending them in a correct direction. Now my prediction is when the economists take a little psychology into account that their reconciliation will be quite indurable. And here my model is the procession of the equinoxes. The world would be simpler for a long-term climatologist if the angle of the axis of the earth's rotation compared to the plane of the ecliptic were absolutely fixed. But it doesn't fix it over every 40,000 years or so. There's this little wobble and that has pronounced long-term effects.
毕竟，热力学并不与牛顿力学和引力相矛盾。所以，我认为有些经济学理论并不完全与其他知识一致，它们需要调整。我认为，正是那些行为经济学家正在把这些理论往正确的方向调整。我的预测是，当经济学家们考虑一些心理因素时，他们的整合会非常持久。我的模型是岁差现象。对于长期气候学家来说，如果地球自转轴与黄道面的角度是完全固定的，情况会更简单。但事实上，这个角度每隔大约四万年就会稍微晃动，这对长期气候有显著影响。
Well in many cases, what psychology is going to add is just a little wobble and it will be indurable. Here I quote another hero of mine who of course is Einstein where he said, the Lord is subtle but not malicious. And I don't think it's going to be that hard to bend economics a little to accommodate what's right in psychology. The final question is if the thought system indicated by this list of psychological tendencies has great value not widely recognized and employed, what should the educational system do about it? I am not going to answer that one. Now I like leaving a little mystery. And by used up all the time, so there's no time for questions? I think that what we're going to do is we're going to borrow a little bit of time from the end of the day, so many questions. And we're going to move in and allocate it through self-monger.
在很多情况下，心理学所能增加的只是一点小小的波动，而且这是可以承受的。在这里，我引用我另一位英雄的观点，这位英雄当然是爱因斯坦，他曾说：“上帝是微妙的，但不是恶意的。”我认为，稍微调整经济学以适应心理学中的正确观点并不会太困难。最后一个问题是，如果这份与心理倾向相关的思维系统具有巨大的价值，但尚未被广泛认可和应用，那么教育系统应该如何应对？这个问题我不打算回答。我喜欢保留一点神秘感。现在，由于已经用完所有时间，所以没有时间回答问题了吗？我想我们会从一天的尾声借一点时间出来，问题太多了。我们会继续并通过自我调整来分配时间。
That's exactly what we're going to do. So one of the questions for us is we're going to have to end this. And that will be the last question. The last question. The last question. By the way, the dean of the Stanford Law School, the professor of the University of California, has a question. By the way, the dean of the Stanford Law School is here today, Paul Breast. And he is trying to create, of course, at the Stanford Law School, it tries to work stuff similar to this into worldly wisdom for lawyers, which overgaard is a profoundly good idea. And he wrote an article about it and you'll begin a copy along with the SEAL DINY's book. Questions?
这正是我们要做的事情。因此，我们面临的其中一个问题是我们需要结束这场讨论。那将是最后一个问题。最后一个问题。最后一个问题。顺便提一句，斯坦福法学院的院长和加州大学的教授也有一个问题。今天在场的斯坦福法学院院长是Paul Breast。他正在努力在斯坦福法学院将类似内容融入到律师的世俗智慧中，这确实是一个非常好的想法。他还写了一篇相关文章，你们将会收到一份，以及SEAL DINY的书。有问题吗？
Yes. I presume there would be one curious man. And I have an output over there on the table, but don't take more than one because I didn't anticipate such a big crowd. And if we run short, I'm sure the center is up to making other copies. I'm going to have to do this one question. If I had listened to this talk, I might have done it a few or a years. I told you, if I had listened to this talk, I might have thought that Charles Munder, with the technology professor operating in a business school, every once in a while would have been a micro issue. I told us how you would have dealt with one of these issues, for example, with the unfortunate lady from SEES. But you didn't tell us how these tendencies affected you and what's probably the most important or one of the most important elements of your success, which was deciding where to invest your money.
是的。我想会有一个好奇的人。那边桌子上有一份资料，但请不要拿超过一份，因为我没预料到会有这么多人。如果不够分，我相信这个中心会提供其他的复印件。我得回答这个问题。如果我听过这个演讲，可能会在几年前或更早处理这个问题。我告诉过你，如果我听过这个演讲，我可能会认为查尔斯·芒德尔（Charles Munder）作为一位在商学院工作的技术教授，有时会遇到一些小问题。我说过您曾经如何处理过其中一个问题，比如关于那位来自SEES的女士的不幸事件。但您没有告诉我们这些趋势如何影响了您，以及决定在哪里投资您的资金这一点，作为您成功最重要的因素之一，是如何做到的。
And I'm wondering if you might relate some of these principles to some of your past decisions of life. Well, of course, an investment decision in the Commons talk of a company frequently involves a whole lot of factors interacting. Usually, of course, there's one big simple model. And a lot of those models are microeconomic. And I have a little list of, it wouldn't be nearly 24 of those, but I don't have time for that one. And I don't have too much interest in teaching other people how to get rich. My personal, and that isn't because I fear the competition or anything like that, Warren has always been very open about what he's learned. And I share that ethos.
我想知道你是否能将这些原则与您过去的一些人生决策联系起来。当然，在公司投资决策中，通常涉及许多相互作用的因素。通常情况下，会有一个简单而重要的模型。其中很多模型都是微观经济模型。我有一个小清单，但肯定不会多到24个，因为我没有时间，更没有太多兴趣教别人致富。并不是因为我害怕竞争，沃伦一直对他所学的东西持非常开放的态度，我也分享这种精神。
My personal behavior model is Lord Canes. I wanted to get rich so I could be independent. And so I could do other things like give talks on the intersection of psychology and economics. I didn't want to turn it into a total obsession. Yeah. I was 24, but you tell us the one rule that we must report.
我的个人行为模式是效仿凯恩斯。我想变得富有，以便能够独立，并做一些其他事情，比如在心理学和经济学的交叉领域进行演讲。我不想让这变成一种完全的痴迷。是的，那时我24岁，但你告诉我们必须遵循的唯一规则。
I would say the one thing that causes the most trouble is when you combine a bunch of these together, you get this la la poloza effect. And if you again, if you read the psychology textbooks, they don't discuss how these things combine. At least not very much. Do they multiply, do they add, what, how does it work?
我想说，问题最大的一个因素就是当你把这些因素放在一起时，会产生一种所谓的“啦啦波罗萨效应”。并且，如果你去看心理学教材，它们很少讨论这些因素是如何相互结合的。它们是相乘的，是相加的，还是其他方式？这些是如何运作的？
I think it would be just an automatic subject for research, but it doesn't seem to turn the psychology establishment on. I think this is a man for Mars approach to psychology. I just reached in and took what I thought I had to have. That is a difference out of incentives from rising in an economic establishment where there were a war system.
我觉得这本应该是一个自动成为研究主题的东西，但心理学界似乎并不感兴趣。我认为这就像是一种“火星任务式”的心理学方法。我只是深入挖掘，获取我认为必须得到的东西。这与在一个经济体制中因为存在战争系统而激励上升的方式不同。
Again, the reinforcement comes from being a truffle hound. That's what Jacob Viner, the great economist called it, the truffle hound. An animal so bred and trained for one narrow purpose that he wasn't much good at anything else. And that is the reward system in a lot of academic departments.
这句话的意思是，"这就像是一只寻找松露的猎犬得到奖励。" 这是伟大的经济学家雅各布·维纳所提到的。他称这种猎犬为松露猎犬，这种动物被培育和训练得只适合做一件事情，所以在其他方面不太擅长。这种单一性也反映了许多学术部门的奖励体系。
It is not necessarily pretty good. It may be fine if you want new drugs or something. You want people stunted in a lot of different directions so we can grow in one narrow direction. But I don't think it's good teaching psychology to the masses. Back to anything that's terrible.
这不一定很好。如果你是想要研发新药之类的东西，那可能还不错。你想要人们在不同方面受限，以便在一个狭窄的方向上成长。但我认为这不是一个教大众心理学的好方法。回到任何糟糕的事情上。