首页  >>  来自播客: User Upload Audio 更新   反馈

Thinking in Bets | Annie Duke | Talks at Google

发布时间 2018-06-21 17:53:40    来源
Great, so we'll get started. Annie Duke has devoted her life to the study of decision-making under pressure. During her career as a professional poker player, she won over $4 million in tournaments, earned a World Series of Poker Bracelet, and has the only woman to have won the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, and the NBC National Heads Up Poker Championship. She's retired from poker since 2012. She is now a corporate speaker and a consultant on decision strategy. Merging her poker expertise and her graduate level research in psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, she has authored five books as a co-founder of HowEyesSci.org, Surgeon the Board of Afterschool All-Stars, and is a trustee of the Franklin Institute. She's also won a televised championship in Rock Paper Scissors. I think I won like $10,000. I'd say high stakes, yeah. Mama 4, and she lives outside Philadelphia, so let's welcome her to Google.
太好了,我们开始吧。安妮·杜克毕生致力于研究高压环境下的决策制定。在她的职业扑克生涯中,她在各种比赛中赢得超过400万美元,还获得了一枚世界扑克系列赛手链,并且曾是唯一赢得世界扑克系列赛冠军赛和NBC全国扑克冠军赛的女性。她于2012年从扑克界退役。如今,她是一名企业演讲者和决策策略顾问。结合她在扑克方面的专业知识和她在宾夕法尼亚大学的心理学研究生研究,她合著了五本书。她是HowEyesSci.org的联合创始人,担任Afterschool All-Stars的理事会成员,同时也是富兰克林学会的受托人。她甚至还赢得过一次石头剪刀布的电视冠军赛,好像赢了1万美元。我想这算是高风险了,是吧。作为四个孩子的母亲,她居住在费城附近,所以让我们欢迎她来到Google。

So Annie, you want to start with what inspired you to write this book? Oh, that's a very broad question. So I used to joke, the joke that I used to make was for most of my professional career, I spent my life taking advantage of people who made decisions that weren't so good. So maybe I should spend some of my life trying to help people make better decisions. So that's kind of the cheeky answer. But I think that what actually really inspired me to write the book was that I started off my life in academics. I was at the University of Pennsylvania. I was studying cognitive science, which is really, of course, a study of the way that our brains interact with the environment.
那么,安妮,你想先谈谈是什么激发了你写这本书的灵感吗?哦,这是个很宽泛的问题。我过去常常开玩笑说,我的职业生涯大部分时间都在利用那些做出糟糕决策的人。所以,也许我应该花一些时间帮助人们做出更好的决策。这是个有点调皮的答案。但实际上,真正激励我写这本书的原因是,我的人生是从学术界开始的。我在宾夕法尼亚大学学习认知科学,这实际上是研究我们大脑与环境互动的方式。

How do we process information as it comes in? I was getting my PhD in that, you know, had a National Science Foundation Fellowship, and I was on my way to become a professor. And right at the end of that journey, I actually got sick. I ended up with a stomach problem that landed me in the hospital for a couple of weeks, and I ended up missing the job market for that year, because it's seasonal. So I had to take time off just to recuperate, and I was going to go back out on the market the next year, and I ended up in that year. That's when I took this, what felt like this very big left turn into poker.
我们是如何处理新信息的呢?我当时在攻读这方面的博士学位,还获得了国家科学基金会的奖学金,本来准备成为一名教授。然而,就在这个旅程的最后,我突然生病了,得了胃病,不得不住院两周。这导致我错过了当年的就业机会,因为这是有季节性的。所以我不得不休息一段时间来恢复,本来打算第二年重新找工作。结果就在那一年,我做了一个看似非常重大的转变,进入了扑克行业。

So I started playing poker, and about eight years into it, I got asked by actually a retreat of options traders, if I could come speak to them, about the way that poker might inform their decision making and how they handle risk. And it was this moment where I realized, you know, oh gosh, I thought I took this really huge left turn out of academics, but I didn't. I landed in just a really amazing natural laboratory to study how do we make decisions under conditions of uncertainty when the outcomes of those decisions are not very well connected to the quality of the decision making itself. It's just a very noisy environment.
所以我开始玩扑克,大约八年后,我被一群期权交易者邀请去他们的一个聚会上演讲,主题是扑克如何影响他们的决策和风险处理。就是在那个时刻,我意识到,其实我并没有完全偏离学术的道路。我发现自己其实是进入了一个非常棒的自然实验室,在这里我可以研究在不确定条件下是如何做决策的,尤其是当决策结果与决策质量之间的关系并不明确时。这里的环境充满了不确定性。

And how are you pulling the signal out, and how are you learning under those circumstances? And the answer is not so well, really. And it was this moment of kind of revelation for me as I was thinking, like, what am I going to say to this group of people? Because it was this kind of moment where it all came together for me where I said, you know, it's really interesting because I was taught in graduate school that learning occurs under conditions where you have lots and lots of feedback tied closely in time to decisions and actions. And as I'm going to go talk to these people, what I realize is, poker is the ultimate lots and lots of feedback tied closely in time.
你是如何提取信号的,你在这样的情况下又是如何学习的?坦白说,效果并不是很好。当我在思考该如何向这群人表达时,我有了一种恍然大悟的感觉。这一刻让我明白,我在研究生时学到的是,学习是在有大量反馈且这些反馈与决策和行动时间紧密相连的情况下发生的。而当我准备与这些人交流时,我意识到,扑克就是这样的一个例子:大量反馈紧密地与时间相关联。

I mean, within 30 seconds of time to decisions and actions. And yet what I saw was that learning was not occurring very well. And so it was that moment of wanting to square those two things together. And after that first talk, I just went along, you know, I was like, oh, and I started building this second career and speaking to audiences about how poker is a kind of a really great platform and framework for kind of understanding not only what are the problems in decision-making, but how can we kind of solve for them?
在短短30秒内就要做出决策和采取行动。然而,我发现学习并没有很好地进行。这让我希望能将这两者结合起来。在第一次演讲之后,我意识到这一点,于是开始建立第二职业,与观众探讨扑克如何成为一个极好的平台和框架,不仅帮助理解决策中存在的问题,还能帮助找到解决方法。

And I sort of feel like from 2002, I was just workshopping this material and that I was finding this incredible joy in sharing these ideas with people in a way that felt really different to me than poker. And poker, I'm thinking about these ideas in a way that's very zero-sum, right? I'm going to win. You're going to lose. You're going to win. And, you know, when I started doing this in 2002, I started growing that business and it started to become a much bigger part of my life actually than the poker was.
从2002年开始,我感觉自己一直在打磨这些内容,并且找到了极大的乐趣去与他人分享这些想法,这种感觉对我来说与玩扑克时非常不同。在扑克中,我总是以零和的方式思考这些想法,比如,我赢你输或者你赢我输。而在2002年开始做这些新的事情时,我逐渐将它发展成一个业务,这逐渐比玩扑克占据了我生活中的更大部分。

And it just felt in this really nice way like I was adding water sort of back into the ocean. And, you know, this book sort of came out of that whole journey that I took. So can we talk about what prevents people from making good decisions? Oh, that's because that's that. Do we want to narrow that down at all? What prevents people from making good decisions? I think it's a collision of a couple of problems. I think that the first piece is uncertainty. And uncertainty comes from two places. It comes from hidden information. So this is where we can see how poker might be a really good way to look at decision-making. The first place it comes from is hidden information. So, in poker, the cards are faced down. Guess what? In life as well. There's very often a lot of information asymmetry, right? And there's lots of stuff that we can't know and there's lots of things that we don't know. So that's the first place that uncertainty comes from.
这段话可以翻译为中文如下: 这种感觉就像是在以一种非常好的方式把水重新注入大海。而且,这本书就是从我经历的整个旅程中产生的。那么,我们可以讨论一下是什么阻碍了人们做出正确的决策吗?哦,那是因为这样。我们是否想把这个问题具体化一点?是什么阻碍了人们做出良好的决策?我认为这是几个问题碰撞的结果。第一个因素是不确定性。 而不确定性来自两个方面。一个是隐藏的信息。在这里,我们可以看到扑克可能是研究决策的一个很好的方式。第一个来源是隐藏信息。 在扑克中,牌是面朝下的。你猜怎么着?生活中也是如此。常常存在大量信息不对称,还有很多我们无法知道的事情。 所以这是不确定性的第一个来源。

But even if we did have perfect information, say for example, about a coin, and we know that heads or tails, it's going to flip 50% of the time, we also have the intervention of luck, which is the other form of uncertainty. So even if I know everything I need to know about the coin, so there's no hidden information about the coin. And it doesn't mean I can predict whether it will flip heads or tails on the next try. I can say something over 10,000 tries. I can tell you how it's going to work out over time. But most of what we're doing is actually sort of these one trial scenarios, and particularly as we're trying to make decisions and learn from the outcomes of our decisions, we're not very good aggregators. We're not sitting back. Well, first of all, most of the decisions we make, we couldn't get 10,000 trials even so. And even if we could, the data is kind of coming in one at a time as we're out sort of in the field, making our own decisions.
即便我们拥有完美的信息,比如说对于一枚硬币,我们知道正面或反面各有50%的可能性出现,我们仍然面临运气带来的不确定性。因此,即便我对硬币的所有信息了如指掌,也不意味着我能预测下一次它会是正面还是反面。我可以在进行一万次抛硬币试验后,告诉你总体会有怎样的结果。但实际上我们大多数时候面临的都是一次性的场合,尤其是在我们试图通过决策结果来做决定和学习时,我们并不擅长汇总和分析数据。实际上,我们大部分决策并没有机会进行上万次试验。即便有这样的机会,数据也是随着我们在现实中做决定时一点一点积累起来的。

And so we're sort of encoding everything one at a time. We're not sitting back and saying, let me not make any decisions until I have lots and lots of data. And in fact, that would be impractical because like, for example, you would never say get married to somebody like that, right? Because you'd have to get so many trials in order to know that you were sure. So it's not practical to do anyway. So the first piece, the first problem is that there's all this uncertainty. And then the second problem is that nature, the way that our brains have built, has given us a lot of rope to sort of hang ourselves with the uncertainty. And we can sort of go back to sort of the beginning, which is what are the types of errors that evolution built us to make?
我们正在逐一对每件事情进行编码,而不是坐等搜集大量数据后才做决定。事实上,这样做不切实际,比如,你绝不会在完全了解之前经过无数试验才决定和某人结婚,对吧?所以这么做在实际中是行不通的。第一个问题是我们面临许多不确定性。第二个问题是,我们的大脑构造使我们很容易在这些不确定性中犯错。我们可以回到开始,思考一下进化是如何让我们容易犯错的。

Because so there are type 1 errors and type 2 errors. Type 1 errors are false positives and type 2 errors are false negatives. And we're really, really built for false positives. We connect things together. We think they're causal. We think they go together much more often than they actually do. So we're big at patterns. We love things to be connected together. So, and that causes a problem. So that's sort of problem number one. And we can think about that in the sense of, which is worth, if you're on the savanna and you hear rustling, among the reeds, is it, are you going to wait and say, oh, let me try to figure out if there's actually a lion here or you're going to run away, right? So obviously we're going to run away. So that's number one.
因为存在第一类错误和第二类错误。第一类错误是“假阳性”,而第二类错误是“假阴性”。我们特别容易发生假阳性错误,因为我们习惯于把事物联系在一起,觉得它们之间有因果关系,认为它们经常同时发生,即使实际并非如此。我们很擅长发现模式,喜欢把事物联系在一起,但这可能会引发问题。这就是问题之一。可以这样理解:如果你在草原上听到芦苇间的沙沙声,你会选择停下来判断是否真的有狮子,还是立刻逃跑?显然,我们会选择逃跑。因此,这就是第一个问题。

Number two is we're built for tribes. So there was a lot of advantage for us surviving if we came together in groups and we had tribes. And so that causes a problem as well for decision making because it causes these problems in the way that we process information from things that are outside of our tribe. So that's kind of the number two problem. And then the number three problem is, is really, I talk about this a lot in the book, is that we aren't really built to disconfirm the things that we already believe. We're very much built to affirm our priors. And so when you think about the uncertainty and the way that we sort of interpret information as it comes in, there's so much uncertainty in the data that we're getting, that it gives us the room to just process the world in a way to make us feel right about the things that we already believe.
第二个问题是我们天生就是为群体而生的。在生存方面,如果我们聚集成群体和部落,就能获得很多优势。然而,这也为决策带来了问题,因为这会影响我们处理来自于我们部落之外的信息的方式。这就是第二个问题。 第三个问题,我在书中多次谈到这一点,就是我们并不擅长否定已经相信的事情。我们更倾向于确认自己已有的观点。因此,当我们思考不确定性以及我们如何解读不断涌入的信息时,由于我们获得的数据中存在大量不确定性,这使得我们有空间按照让自己感觉正确的方式去处理世界。

And when you have that collusion between that, the false positive problem and then the tribal problem on top of that, like things really fall apart. Now your book, you're talking about the beliefs people have about showing the right information of people and somehow they will get them to see things correctly. Can you talk more about that too? Sure. So I think that this is part of the problem is that we have these ways that we process information.
当你看到这种情况时,虚假阳性问题和部落问题相互影响,问题就变得更加严重了。在你的书中,你谈到了人们关于展示正确信息的信念,认为这样能让他们正确看待事物。你能详细谈谈这个话题吗?当然。我认为这就是问题的一部分,即我们处理信息的方式。

So here, an example that I talk about in my book is something called motivated reasoning. So I think you've all probably heard about confirmation bias. So motivated reasoning is a larger problem than confirmation bias. So in confirmation bias, we have some sort of prior belief and we'll notice stuff that confirms the belief and we just kind of won't notice things that disconfirm the belief. Motivated reasoning is, let's think about this as an umbrella problem of which confirmation bias is part, which is that we actually are motivated to confirm the beliefs we have and that drives our information processing.
在我的书中,我提到了一个叫做动机性推理的例子。我想你们可能都听说过确认偏误。动机性推理是比确认偏误更大的一种问题。在确认偏误中,我们会有一些先前的信念,然后我们会注意那些能确认这些信念的东西,而对那些与信念不符的东西则会视而不见。动机性推理可以被看作是一个涵盖确认偏误在内的更广泛的问题,也就是说,我们实际上是有动机去确认我们已有的信念,这种动机驱动着我们的信息处理过程。

So that means that not only will we process and will we sort of notice stuff that confirms us and not notice things that disconfirm us, but also when confronted with information that disconfirms us, we work very, very hard to discredit it. And when confronted with information that confirms us, we actually don't put any effort into the discrediting at all. So we don't really vet it very hard. So you guys can probably feel that, right? When I read an article that say politically agrees with me, I'm like, wow, that's a really smart article. And when it disagrees with me political, I am like, that, you know, they're looking at the study and the N is too small and they weren't looking at this data and they were asking the wrong questions and the person isn't reliable anyway and they forgot all this other stuff and they're totally biased.
这意味着我们不仅会处理和注意那些符合我们观点的信息,而对不符合我们观点的信息视而不见,而且当我们面对不符合自己观点的信息时,我们会非常努力地去否定它。而面对符合我们观点的信息时,我们几乎不费什么力气去质疑它。因此,我们并不会认真地去审查那些信息。你们大概也有这种感觉吧?当我读到一篇在政治上与我观点一致的文章时,我会觉得,哇,这篇文章太聪明了。而当我读到一篇在政治上与我观点不一致的文章时,我会觉得,他们的研究样本太小了,没有考虑到某些数据,问题问得不对,那个人也不可靠,还遗漏了其他很多东西,完全有偏见。

You know, it's weird because I just don't go through that process with the things that agree with me, strange. Okay, so not only that, then we have this other issue, which is that when we're in a tribe, part of what a tribe gives you is kind of forth, it gives you a sense of belongingness, a sense of distinctiveness, right? So you belong to a tribe, you're distinct from other tribes in some way where you process that as being superior. It gives you the idea of what's moral and what's not is also included in the tribe, but then it also gives you something really important for this talk today, which is called epistemic closure, meaning that the tribe is telling you what knowledge is true and trustworthy and what is not.
你知道吗,这很奇怪,因为我对于那些和我看法一致的事情没有经过这样的思考过程,很奇怪。好,不仅如此,我们还有另一个问题,就是当我们处于一个群体中时,群体会给我们一些东西,比如归属感和独特性,对吧?所以你属于一个群体,你在某种程度上与其他群体有所不同,而你会认为这种不同是优越的。群体还会告诉你什么是道德的,什么是不道德的。今天讨论的一个非常重要的点是,群体还提供了一种所谓的“认知封闭”,这意味着这个群体会告诉你哪些知识是真实可信的,哪些不是。

So I think that a lot of times what we sort of think, and this is where we understand this, the motivated reasoning with the collision of the tribal problem, what we sort of think is, oh, if other people just had the information, we'd all be fine because then we'd all sort of believe the same things, right? So if we were all working with the exact same information, we'd all be good. But that's assuming that we live in something that we're all living in epistemic bubbles versus echo chambers. So let me just explain what the difference is. An epistemic bubble is you have information and you don't have other information, period.
所以,我认为很多时候我们会这样想:如果其他人也拥有相同的信息,我们就能达成共识,因为我们都会相信同样的事情,对吧?如果大家都在基于相同的信息做决策,一切都会很好。但这样想假设我们都生活在“认知泡沫”中,而不是“回音室”里。接下来让我解释一下两者的区别。所谓的认知泡沫是指你有一些信息,但完全缺乏其他信息。

So if you're in an epistemic bubble where you just haven't gotten the information, then if you get exposed to the information, you incorporate it and you're all good. But epistemic bubbles are pretty rare. What we mostly live in is echo chambers. So echo chambers are, it doesn't matter whether we have the information or not, people outside the group are not trusted sources. So if you get information that disagrees with you that's coming from someone outside the group, it's not trusted anyway. And you can see how you can use that in order to accomplish the goals of motivated reasoning.
如果你处于一个“认识泡沫”中,那就意味着你只是没接收到某些信息。当你接触到这些信息后,你会吸收进去,一切就正常了。但是,“认识泡沫”其实很少见。我们大多数时候生活在“回音室”中。在这种情况下,无论我们是否拥有信息,群体外的人都不被视为可信来源。所以,如果你收到来自群体外部而与你观点不一致的信息,你也不会信任它。而且,你可以看到,这种情况可以用来实现那些带有动机的推理目标。

So when you're now confronted with information that disagrees with you, the way that you actually, one of the ways you discredit it is to talk about the trustworthiness of the source. So what we want to be really careful about is we want to try to apply, as we're trying to imagine, and I talk about this in the book, as we're trying to vet information that comes in, we want to apply a particular norm called universalism, which is separating the person who's delivering the news from whether the news itself is correct or not.
当你面对与自己观点不一致的信息时,其中一种质疑它的方法是讨论信息来源的可信度。然而,我们需要特别注意的是,我们应该尝试应用一种被称为“普遍主义”的原则,这在我书中也提到过。我们在审查收到的信息时,要将传递信息的人与信息本身的正确性分开。换句话说,不要因为信息来源是谁就影响我们对信息内容真实性的判断。

So the way I put it in the book is it doesn't really matter whether it's, you know, Copernicus or Mussolini or your mom who tells you that the earth is round. The fact of the roundness of the earth is independent of those sources. So, you know, in order to actually be good universalists, it's usually pretty good as you're sort of having these reactions to information to try to imagine it absent of the source or to try to imagine it being delivered from a source that you actually trust.
在书中,我的表述是,无论是哥白尼、墨索里尼还是你妈妈告诉你地球是圆的,这个事实本身与这些来源无关。因此,为了真正成为好的普遍主义者,当你接收到信息时,最好尝试把信息和其来源分开,或者想象信息来自一个你信任的来源。

And that actually helps you to vet the information independently of the source, which we're really, really, really bad at, and it's part of this problem of echo chambers. So you're talking about systems of how we can overcome that and looking at decisions in terms of bets. Could you talk about that? Sure, yeah. So, you know, the book is called Thinking in Bets. And the premise is that if we were more explicit in imagining or in actually just making clear that every decision that we make is a bet, that we would actually be better off and it would create a lot more open mindedness. And why is it? Well, first of all, let me try to convince you guys that every decision is a bet.
这段话翻译成中文如下: "这实际上帮助你独立于信息来源来验证信息,而这恰恰是我们非常不擅长的,也是回音壁问题的一部分。所以你在谈论如何克服这一问题的系统,并将决策视为一种赌注。你能谈谈这个吗?当然可以。这本书叫《用赌注思维》。其基本观点是,如果我们更明确地想象或实际上只是清晰地表明我们所做的每一个决定都是一种赌注,那么我们的情况会更好,也会促使我们更加开放地思考。这是为什么呢?首先,让我试着说服大家,每一个决定都是一种赌注。"

So that's the first step. So I actually, I'll tell a story that I tell in here, which is kind of a fun story, I think. I named John Hennegan, a really, really, really great poker player known to have a lot of gamble. And in the 90s, when he was in his 20s, he was really, if you were to think about sort of what is, if you imagine the stereotype of a poker player in 1995, like John Hennegan would be the guy. Like he was, you know, he never saw the sun. He was only playing at night. He was like a total accident junkie. Like when he was finished at the poker table, he just wanted to gamble more. Like he was really, he was very good, but he really liked a lot of action.
所以这就是第一步。其实,我想分享一个我经常讲的有趣故事。我提到一个叫约翰·亨尼根的人,他是一个非常非常出色的扑克玩家,以敢于赌博而闻名。在90年代,当他20多岁时,如果你想象一下1995年扑克玩家的刻板印象,约翰·亨尼根就是那种人。他从不见到太阳,只在晚上打牌。他是一个名副其实的冒险狂。即使在扑克桌结束后,他仍渴望继续赌博。他技术高超,但更喜欢刺激的活动。

So he was sitting at a poker table one day and a discussion broke out about state capitals and people were like quizzing each other on state capitals. So Des Moines comes up. And John Hennegan actually announces that the table is they're discussing Des Moines. Oh, I could totally live in Des Moines. And Des Moines obviously, reputation is kind of sleepy. Maybe if you were to think about sort of what's the antithesis of Las Vegas, maybe you would think of Des Moines as an example. So the players at the table were like, oh, come on. Like there's no way you could live in Des Moines. But Hennegan actually at that time in his life was sort of thinking like, oh, you know, I never see the sun. And so maybe it will be really nice to go and sort of like detox from Vegas a little bit.
有一天,他坐在一张扑克桌旁,大家开始讨论各州的首府,互相提问。于是,有人提到了得梅因。约翰·亨尼根居然说,他完全可以住在得梅因。而得梅因显然是个比较安静的地方,如果要说什么地方和拉斯维加斯完全相反,也许你会想到得梅因。所以牌桌上的其他人都不相信,说不可能。但其实在那个时候,亨尼根心里想着,自己已经很久没见到阳光了,也许去远离一下拉斯维加斯,换个环境,会是个不错的选择。

And then he also had another thing in mind, which is that poker player's gamble on golf a lot. And I could actually really spend some time on golf without the distraction of the actual poker. So they negotiate a bet. So at the table, they negotiate a bet that John Hennegan's going to move to Las Vegas for 30 days, I mean, to Des Moines rather. For 30 days, they add a little bit of a diabolical condition, which is the hotel that he's on is only one street and there's only one restaurant on the street. And there's like no bars. There's no nightlife. There's nothing.
然后,他还有另一件想法,就是扑克牌手常常在高尔夫上下注。我实际上可以专注于高尔夫而不被扑克分心。因此,他们协商了一笔赌注。在牌桌上,他们商定了一项赌注,就是约翰·亨尼根将搬到拉斯维加斯住30天,哦,不,是搬到得梅因。条件还有点让人为难,就是他住的那条街上只有一家酒店和一家餐厅,而且附近没有酒吧,既没有夜生活,也没有其他娱乐。

He's confined to the one street when he moves there for the 30 days. And then, in fact, there is a specific golf course he's allowed to go to to practice golf during the day. So they settle on 30 days and the bet is set for $30,000. So if he can stay in Las Vegas for 30 days, he wins $30,000. If he can't stay there and he has to come back from Des Moines, then he's going to lose $30,000. So literally, the next day, he moves to Des Moines. So two days later, he calls up the group. And he says, hey, I'm in Des Moines. I've obviously completely up and moved to Des Moines. Clearly, I'm good to go. I'm going to stay here.
他被限定在那条街上居住30天。实际上,有一个特定的高尔夫球场白天可以练习高尔夫。因此,他们达成协议,设定了30天的期限,赌注为3万美元。如果他能在拉斯维加斯待满30天,他将赢得3万美元。如果他无法坚持,必须从得梅因回来,他就会输钱。实际上,第二天他就搬到了得梅因。两天后,他打电话给一伙人,说:“嘿,我现在在得梅因,我显然已经彻底搬到得梅因,肯定没问题了,我会在这里待着。”

So if you'd like to settle, you guys can pay me $15,000 and I'll come home and I'll save you the misery of losing the whole 30. Yeah, that was the group's reaction. So they were like, no, we're good, John. Why don't you stay there? So a week later, John Hennigan had moved back from Des Moines. He was living in Las Vegas and he had paid the group $15,000 for the privilege. So I tell this story because it sounds like, oh my gosh, these crazy poker players making this bet on where John was going to move. But if you think about it, it's really no different than any decision that you've ever made.
所以,如果你们想解决这件事,你们可以付我15000美元,我就回家,这样就能省下损失整整三万的痛苦。小组的反应是这样的:他们说,不用啦,约翰。你还是留在那里吧。一周后,约翰·亨尼根从得梅因搬回来了。他住在拉斯维加斯,为此还向小组支付了15000美元。之所以讲这个故事,是因为听起来好像这些疯狂的扑克玩家在赌约翰会搬去哪儿。但仔细想想,这其实和我们做出的任何决定没有什么不同。

I mean, your decision to come and work at Google, right? You have other opportunities. You're thinking about what's John has to think about, am I going to like Des Moines? He doesn't know because he hasn't lived there before, right? The money that I'm going to make if I win this bet, is it going to be better than the money that I'm going to make if I stay in Las Vegas? And if I'm actually taking less money, is that okay? Because I'm creating different types of opportunities for myself. Like, I'm going to feel like I live a healthier life for that month and that's worth making less money.
就是说,你决定去谷歌工作,对吧?你有其他的机会。你在考虑约翰要思考的问题,比如我会喜欢得梅因吗?他不知道,因为他以前没有住过那里,对吧?如果我赢得这个赌注,我能赚到的钱会比留在拉斯维加斯赚的钱多吗?如果我实际上赚得更少,那可以接受吗?因为我在为自己创造不同类型的机会。比如,我会觉得在那个月里过得更健康,这值得我少赚些钱。

Or I'm going to work on my golf game and that's going to have payoffs, which would be sort of the same as I'm thinking about taking a job in Des Moines. And I have to think about how is Des Moines going to compare to the place that I live now? I don't know. I've never lived there. Am I going to like it versus any other place that I might possibly move? Is the salary good enough for me to feel like I'm willing to take that risk in terms of going and moving there? What are the opportunities for advancement? What are the kinds of money that, you know, could I make in the future?
或者我打算提升我的高尔夫水平,这也会有回报,就像我在考虑去得梅因找工作一样。我需要想清楚得梅因和我现在住的地方相比如何。我从没住过那里,不知道会不会喜欢这个地方,相较于其他可能搬去的城市。薪水够好吗?让我觉得愿意冒险搬去那里?有没有晋升的机会?将来可以赚到什么样的钱?

And when you choose to move to Des Moines or relocate or take the job at Google, you're obviously foregoing all other possibilities available to you. You can only make the one decision, which was true for John Hennigan as well. So basically, Hennigan had a certain set of beliefs about whether or not he would like to moan, whether or not it would be worth it to him. And when he made the choice, he was foregoing all other choices, including staying in Las Vegas and staying with the status quo or moving any other place where he might maybe detox or go detox from the nightlife or go and practice his golf or whatever it might be.
当你选择搬到得梅因,或者重新安置,或者接受在谷歌的工作时,你显然是在放弃其他所有可能性。你只能做出一个决定,这对于约翰·亨尼根来说也是如此。基本上,亨尼根对是否想要抱怨、是否值得做出这样的选择有一定的看法。当他做出选择时,他放弃了所有其他选择,包括留在拉斯维加斯,维持现状,或者搬到其他地方,可能去远离夜生活或去练习高尔夫或其他任何事情。

And there was a whole set of possible futures that could occur from that, one where he stayed in Des Moines for 30 days and loved it, one where he loved Des Moines so much he never moved back, one where he met the love of his life in Des Moines. One where he calls up after two days and says, hey, I want to settle. And the thing is that you don't know, you're making an estimation of what the probability of each of those futures might be, and you're deciding that whatever you have to invest—and it doesn't have to be money, it can be your health, your happiness, your time, whatever it might be, usually it's all of the above—whatever you're investing in the decision that you actually go with, that that's going to hurt all you to the best set of possible futures is compared to any other decision that you might make.
从这个情况中,有一整套可能的未来。例如,他可能会在得梅因呆上30天并爱上这里,还有可能是他如此喜欢得梅因,以至于决定永远不搬走,又或者他在得梅因遇到了他生命中的挚爱。也可能两天后他就打电话来说:“嘿,我想定居在这里了。”问题在于,你无法确切知道这些未来中每一个发生的概率是多少。你需要做出一种估计,并决定无论你需要投入什么——未必是金钱,也可能是你的健康、快乐、时间,或者通常是以上所有——在你决定采取的那个行动中,这种投入会使你获得相较于其他任何选择更好的未来。

So the poker players really just make that explicit. And that's really what you're doing when your betting is you're making it explicit that a decision is a bet informed by your beliefs on a set of possible futures that you might be hurtling yourself too. So once we kind of understand that frame, I think that it actually can help us overcome some of these problems that we have with decision making. And I'll show you a really simple example. So here's something that's been in the news a lot lately because I hear it every single day on the news.
扑克玩家只是把这一点明确表达出来。而当你下注时,你实际上是在明确表明一个决定是基于你对一系列可能未来的信念做出的赌注。一旦我们理解了这种思维方式,我认为它实际上可以帮助我们克服一些在决策中遇到的问题。我会给你一个简单的例子。最近有件事经常出现在新闻中,因为我每天都能在新闻里听到。

The Democrats are going to take the house in the fall. So okay, so let's say that you said to me, the Democrats are going to win the house in the fall. And let's say that my response was, do you want to bet on that? So think for yourselves, what does that do to you? It causes you to retreat from a place of certainty into a place of probabilistic thinking, right? Because now what you start to think is, okay, well, wait, why do I think that? Ooh, there's a lot of time between now and November. There's a lot of things that could happen, right? Like Trump could solve North Korea. I don't know, that might change things, right?
民主党将在秋季夺取众议院。假设你对我说,民主党将在秋季赢得众议院。那么如果我回应说,你想打个赌吗?想想这对你的影响是什么?这会让你从一个确定的立场退回到一个概率性思考的状态,对吧?因为你会开始想,等等,我为什么这么认为?从现在到十一月之间有很多时间,可能会发生许多事情。比如,特朗普可能解决了朝鲜问题,我不知道,这可能会改变局势,对吗?

We don't know. You know, there's all sorts of other things that might happen, which Trump is somewhat unpredictable. There are things that could happen with the Democrats. There's, you know, I mean, the number of things that can intervene on the luck side between now and six months from now is pretty large, right? And so you'll start to think about that. It brings, it bubbles that uncertainty up to the four. And then you also start to think like, well, have I been reading opinions that disappear and disagree with that?
我们不知道。你知道,有各种各样的事情可能会发生,而特朗普本身就有些不可预测。民主党这边也可能会发生一些事情。就是,从现在到六个月后之间,有很多因素可能影响运气,对吧?所以你会开始考虑这些不确定性,并把这些不确定性放在首位。然后你也可能开始想,我是否有读到那些与这种观点相反的意见?

Like what is the person who's challenging me to the bet, know, or think that I haven't thought of or that I don't know? I have to start thinking about why might I be wrong here before I'm willing to actually put that kind of skin into the game, right? And so essentially what this element of, let me think about my decisions explicitly as bets does, is it forces you into more probabilistic thinking, into more the recognizing of these two forms of uncertainty that I don't ever have perfect information for pretty much anything, right? We just don't.
像是挑战我打赌的那个人,知道或认为我不知道的是什么,或是我没有想到的是什么?在我真正投入精力之前,我必须开始考虑我可能错在哪里,对吧?所以,将我的决策明确地视为赌博这一要素,实际上迫使你进行更多概率性的思考,更多地意识到这两种不确定性:我们几乎从来没有关于任何事情的完美信息,对吧?我们就是没有。

And that the future is always uncertain, that no matter how well I think about the future, how much I predict the future, even if the only bad outcome can occur one percent of the time, it can still happen. So I need to think about that as sort of announcing these things with certainty. Once you start to bubble up the uncertainty in any decision that you make, it causes you to be much more open-minded. Because now what happens is that you're thinking about, well, if I can only think about, if my beliefs are probabilistic and my predictions about the future are probabilistic, then I need to be information hungry.
未来总是不确定的,无论我对未来有多么深入的思考和预测,即使某个坏结果只有1%的几率发生,它仍然可能会发生。因此,我需要记住,不要以绝对确定的态度去宣布这些事情。一旦你在每个决策中意识到这种不确定性,就会让你更加开放和包容。因为此时,你会想到,如果我的观点和对未来的预测都是基于概率的,那么我就需要不断获取信息。

Because what I need to do is start refining my beliefs and refining my predictions, because I actually have to bet on these things with things like my time and things like my money and things like my health and these limited resources that I have. And if I can only make one decision at a time, I bet I'm thinking about this probabilistically, I better start really working to try to refine all of this stuff.
因为我需要开始完善我的信念和预测,因为我实际上必须用我的时间、金钱和健康这些有限的资源来对这些事情下注。如果我每次只能做一个决定,我想我是在用概率思维来考虑这个问题,那么我就更应该努力去完善所有这些事情。

And how am I going to do that? Well, it's going to cause me to be open-minded in particular to why I'm wrong, open-minded to opinions and beliefs that disagree with me, because I already know why I'm right. That's how I got to a place of certainty in the first place. So once I start backing off of that, I've got to start thinking about, again, what is the other person know that I don't know? And I think that that's why it's such a good frame for trying to solve for some of these problems.
我该怎么做到这一点呢? 这将促使我特别对我可能错的地方保持开放心态,对与我意见和信念不同的观点持开放态度,因为我已经知道为什么我是正确的。这就是我最初确信自己正确的原因。因此,一旦我开始不那么肯定自己,我就需要开始思考:对方知道什么是我不知道的?我认为这就是为什么这是一个解决这些问题的好思路。

So you make the bet and it doesn't work out for you. What should your next steps be on how to analyze what happened? So you make the bet and it doesn't work out for you. Right. And so what should your next steps be? So that's a very good question. So it's actually one of the big problems is that once you have a result, it really distorts your ability to go back in and analyze the decision process, it's a problem called resulting.
所以你下了赌注,但结果不如你所愿。接下来你应该采取什么步骤来分析发生了什么?这是个很好的问题。实际上,一个大问题是,一旦有了结果,它会严重影响你重新分析决策过程的能力,这个问题被称为“结果偏见”。

So another story from the book that I'll give to sort of illustrate this problem and then we can talk about solutions for this. So do you guys remember the 2015 Super Bowl Seahawks versus Patriots? Yeah. So you're in the right area to remember that, right? So I mean, so, okay, so it's the last play of the Super Bowl. The Seahawks are on the one yard line, 26 seconds left. The second down, they have one time out and they're down by four.
这是书中的另一个故事,用来说明这个问题,然后我们再讨论解决方案。你们还记得2015年的超级碗比赛吗?那场比赛是由海鹰队对阵爱国者队。对吧,你们在这个领域应该会记得,很精彩的比赛。好吧,当时比赛已经进入最后一个回合,海鹰队在一码线处,还有26秒时间。第二次进攻,他们有一次暂停机会,但是他们落后四分。

So this is obviously a really important decision that's going on here because if they score, the Patriots are unlikely to have enough time to be able to march back down the field and score again. So if they can get a touchdown here, this probably even be the game winner, which would be a really big deal because the Patriots like never lose the Super Bowl until they shear and I'm from Philly. But I'm just saying I was pretty excited about that.
这显然是一个非常重要的决定,因为如果他们得分,爱国者队可能没有足够的时间反攻并再次得分。如果他们能在这里达阵,这可能就是决定比赛胜负的一分,这将是一件大事,因为爱国者队几乎从来没有在超级碗中输过,直到他们这次输给了我们。我是费城人,所以我对此感到非常兴奋。

So, okay, so what does Pete Carroll do here? He's got a running back on his team named Marshal Lynch, amazing short yardage running back. Everybody's expecting him to hand it off to Marshal Lynch and instead he calls pass play. Russell Wilson passes the ball and the ball is intercepted pretty famously. And boom, done. Malcolm Butler intercepts the ball, the game is over. The in game calling from Chris Collins' worth is pretty brutal on this decision.
好的,那么皮特·卡罗尔在这里做了什么呢?他的球队中有一名跑卫叫马肖尔·林奇,他是一个很擅长短距离冲刺的跑卫。每个人都以为他会把球交给马肖尔·林奇,但他却选择了传球战术。拉塞尔·威尔逊将球传出,但非常出名的是,这球被拦截了。马上,比赛就结束了。马尔科姆·巴特勒拦截了球,比赛结束。克里斯·柯林斯在比赛中的解说对这个决定表示了严厉批评。

You know, Pete Carroll, that I can't even believe this call, this is such a horrible call. And the next day I have to say that most of the pundits did not disagree. There seem to be an argument among the major outlets about whether it's the worst call in Super Bowl history, which was most of them. But USA Today actually said it was the worst call in football history period. So that seems to be where the disagreement lay.
你知道吗,皮特·卡罗尔,我简直不敢相信这个决定,这真是一个糟糕的选择。第二天,我不得不说,大多数评论员并没有反对这一看法。主要媒体之间似乎在争论这是不是超级碗历史上最糟糕的决策,大多数人认为是。甚至《今日美国》直接称其为橄榄球历史上最糟糕的决定。所以分歧点似乎就在这里。

So this is a really good example of resulting. So we know what the result was horrible, right? I mean, the result was one of the worst results in Super Bowl history. We can agree with on that. But that does not mean that it was one of the worst decisions in Super Bowl history. And I think to just declare that Pete Carroll hadn't put any thought into it. I mean, this is Pete Carroll. He's in the Super Bowl for a reason. You know, I thought was pretty spectacular.
这真是一个“结果论”的好例子。我们都知道比赛结果是很糟糕的,对吧?可以说,这是超级碗历史上最糟糕的结果之一。然而,这并不意味着这是超级碗历史上最糟糕的决定。我认为,如果仅仅因为结果不好就说皮特·卡罗尔没有经过深思熟虑,是不对的。毕竟,这可是皮特·卡罗尔,他能进入超级碗是有原因的。我觉得他的表现其实相当精彩。

So like, I'll just ask you guys to do the thought experiments. So we can see what the problem is. What do you do once you have the result? Imagine that Pete Carroll passes that ball. And the ball is caught for a touchdown in the end zone. Just take a moment to think about that. Now, how does that decision feel now? Brilliant. But how it turns out on that one outcome shouldn't actually affect the way that we think about the decision, right?
好的,我想请你们做一个思想实验,这样我们可以看出问题所在。当你得到结果时,你会怎么做?想象一下,皮特·卡罗尔传球,然后球在端区被接住,达阵成功。花点时间思考一下这个情境。现在,你对这个决定的感觉如何?是不是很出色。但是,我们不应该仅仅因为结果的好坏来评价这个决定,对吗?

I mean, that's like saying if I flip a coin and you call heads and it lands heads that was a brilliant decision. But if it lands tails, that was a really dumb decision. Like, one outcome tells us nothing. So you can feel it. You can feel that the result acts like a gravity well. And you can't climb out of it to look at whether the decision process was good or not. It's really hard.
我的意思是,这就像说如果我抛硬币,你猜正面,结果是正面,这就是一个明智的决定。但如果是反面,那就是一个非常愚蠢的决定。实际上,一个结果并不能说明什么。所以你可以感觉到,结果就像一个引力井,它吸引着你的注意力,让你无法跳出来看看这个决策过程是否合理。这真的很难。

Now, just to not leave you with a cliffhanger, just so you know the probability of an interception in that spot depends on how many seasons you aggregate across. But it's probably somewhere hovering around one or two percent. So here they declared this like the worst decision ever and like a one percenter hit, basically. So I don't think that should really save very much about whether the quality of that decision was any good.
现在,为了不让你悬念太久,我想告诉你,那种情况下发生拦截的概率取决于你统计了多少个赛季的数据。不过,这个概率大概在1%到2%之间。因此,人们把这一决策称为有史以来最糟糕的,而且事实上是一次发生概率只有1%的事件。所以,我认为这并不能真正说明这个决策的质量是否好。

Also, by the way, for anybody who understands options theory, remember they only had one time out. So if a very usual event, I think it's about 40% of the time that the ball just is incomplete there, what happens to ball stops and guess what they have time for to running place? So if they hand the ball off to Marshal Lynch, they're going to run so much time out that they're only going to be able to get two plays off even with being able to call the time out. So they're only going to get to two plays. If they pass the ball and it's dropped, they actually get three plays, including those two running plays that everybody wanted them to run in the first place. So it's a somewhat free option. It costs you about, you know, this interception rate of about 1%. For a more detailed analysis, Benjamin Morris on 538 has a great one. Highly recommend you go read it.
翻译为中文: 顺便提一下,对于那些了解期权理论的人,请记住,他们只有一个暂停。所以在一种很常见的情况下,大约有40%的可能性球在那个时刻是不完整的,这时会发生什么?球会停止,猜猜看,他们有时间进行两次跑动。如果他们把球交给马肖尔·林奇,他们将耗费很多时间,只能进行两次进攻,即便可以调用暂停,他们也只能执行两次战术。但是,如果他们传球但没有成功,他们实际上可以进行三次进攻,其中包括大家最初想让他们采取的两次跑动战术。所以这是一个有点免费的选择,它的代价大约是1%的拦截率。对于更详细的分析,可以阅读Benjamin Morris在538上的精彩文章,强烈推荐你去看看。

But so this is where we can see like that once we know the outcome, once we know whether it's good or bad, it's incredibly hard for us not to then retrofit the decision quality to the outcome. So the answer is unless you've got, unless you're running a Monte Carlo, which we can't for most things, what do we do once an outcome has occurred in terms of how do we move forward? It's like ignore the outcome as much as possible. It's actually the weird answer to that. And I understand it's counterintuitive, but it's kind of the only way to move forward is like, okay, it was one outcome. I got to think about the decision in absence of that.
所以,这就是我们可以看到的情况:一旦我们知道结果,无论是好是坏,我们就很难不根据结果来反过来评价决策质量。因此,答案是,除非你能进行蒙特卡罗模拟(大多数事情上我们做不到),否则当结果发生后,我们如何继续前进呢?答案其实是尽量忽略结果。我知道这听起来有些反直觉,但这实际上是唯一的前进方式:好吧,那只是一个结果。我必须在不考虑该结果的情况下思考这个决策。

And if you want, we can talk about strategies for doing that. But that'd be great. Because you mentioned Phil Ivy, as inside of looking at every situation, look at the skill aspect of it, what can I control, what can I improve. And then you have Helmuth who I guess is, quote, is I would be the best poker player of all time if it wasn't for luck. Yes. So maybe we can talk about that spectrum and stress. Sure. So there's only two things that determine the way our lives turn out. Luck and the quality of our decisions. So we can't really control the luck element. So we should try to get down and focus on the quality of the decision.
如果你愿意,我们可以讨论一些实现这一目标的策略。这会很棒。因为你提到了Phil Ivy,他在面对每个情境时都会关注技能层面,思考自己可以控制和改进的地方。而另一位玩家Helmuth则认为,如果没有运气因素,他会是史上最好的扑克选手。所以我们可以聊聊这种观点的差异和压力问题。好的。我们生活的结果主要由两件事决定:运气和我们决策的质量。虽然我们无法控制运气,但可以专注于提高决策的质量。

So you mentioned Phil Ivy, I think it's a really good example part of the way to do this. So he, I tell a story about, he won a really huge tournament against really an all-star final table. Phil Ivy is one of the best poker players in history. And he actually went to dinner with my brother, and he spent the whole time talking about all the mistakes that he had made. So obviously he's got an interesting cognitive style. Probably one that's partly responsible for how good he is. But he gives us actually a clue of how to handle these kinds of situations. So there's a variety of different, what we're trying to do is get to a point where we can all be Phil Ivy.
你提到了菲尔·艾维,我认为他是一个很好的例子,可以帮助我们理解如何做到这一点。我讲一个故事:他在与一桌全明星选手的决赛中赢得了一场大型比赛。菲尔·艾维是历史上最优秀的扑克玩家之一。他实际上和我兄弟一起吃过晚饭,他整个晚上都在谈论自己犯下的各种错误。显然,他有一种有趣的认知风格,这可能是他如此优秀的部分原因。但是,他实际上给了我们一个如何处理这些情况的线索。我们想做的是让大家都能像菲尔·艾维那样。

It's very hard to do. It's very hard to sort of take our great outcomes and look for mistakes. It's very hard to take our bad outcomes actually and look for mistakes as well. We kind of want to pawn that off onto luck. So what I really talk about in the book is that the way into this is actually to try to separate outcomes from decision quality as much as possible. So how can we do that? There's a variety of ways we can do that. Let's talk with sort of strategy number one. All of this is done much better in a group, by the way. So I'm part of that reason is because of this kind of gravity well that we end up down in.
这件事情非常困难。将我们的好结果归因为错误很难,将我们的坏结果归因为错误同样也很困难。我们常常会把这些结果归咎于运气。在我的书中,我讨论的重点是尽量将结果与决策质量分开来考虑。那么我们该怎么做到这一点呢?有多种方法可供选择。首先,让我们来谈谈策略一。顺便说一句,这些都在团队中进行会更好,部分原因是为了避免我们最终掉入的思维惯性。

This is the way our brains work. It's very hard for us to parse this apart, but other people can see our bias much better than we can see it in ourselves. I mean, you can spot bias thinking a mile away, right? So like get some people in a group with you who will spot your bias and you'll spot their bias. And then here are some things that you can do with that group. Thing number one is when possible deconstruct decisions before outcomes have occurred. So that's really, really good to do and memorialize it. So now as you're thinking about the decision and what the outcomes might be, you can write down what you think all the possible outcomes are.
这就是我们大脑的工作方式。我们很难自己分析清楚,但别人能更清楚地看到我们的偏见。我是说,你应该可以很容易地察觉到别人的偏见,对吧?所以,让一些人和你组成一个小组,他们可以发现你的偏见,而你也可以发现他们的偏见。然后,你们可以在小组中做一些事情。其中之一就是在结果出现之前尽可能地解构决策。这非常有用,并且要把它记录下来。这样,当你在思考决策和可能的结果时,就可以写下你认为所有可能的结果。

So we can think about this in terms of the peak care example and there's like, okay, maybe the ball will be caught, maybe the ball will be dropped, maybe we'll be intercepted, you try to assign some sort of probability to each of those possible scenarios. You think about what the extra things you're getting out of it. So what are the pay off in that case I'm getting to running plays anyway? So now what happens is that when the ball gets intercepted, you're not overreacting to it because you've actually thought about this in advance and you can actually point and say, well, there's the interception scenario. We thought about that when we thought about the decision and it happens 1% of the time.
我们可以通过尖峰关怀的例子来思考这个问题。比如,也许球会被接住,也许球会被掉落,也许会被拦截。我们试着给每种可能的情景分配一些概率。你要考虑从中能得到什么额外的收益。那么,在这种情况下,我反正都会进行两次进攻。那么现在,当球被拦截时,你不会过度反应,因为你事先已经想过这个问题,你可以指出,说看看,那就是拦截的情况。当我们做决定时,我们已经考虑到了这一点,而它只发生了1%的时间。

So let's not overreact to that and like go now change our decision, the way that we decide in the future to not call that play again because it's already up there. So like a trial lawyer can deconstruct their trial strategy before they get a verdict. So that's like one thing you can do. When possible, do as much of the work before you get the outcome. That's really good. Now in poker, that's actually like literally impossible because you get the outcome in like 30 seconds. So there's not a lot of work you can do in that 30 seconds and you certainly can't go off to a group and say can we work out the decision tree and then I'll come back to the table and actually make my decision. So you can't do that.
所以,我们不要因为这个就过度反应,也不要现在就去改变我们的决定,或者决定将来不再使用这个策略,因为决定已经做出了。就像一个审判律师可以在得到判决前分析他们的审判策略。这是一种你可以采取的做法。在可能的情况下,尽量在得到结果之前完成尽可能多的工作。这是很好的。然而,在扑克游戏中,这几乎是不可能的,因为你在30秒内就会得到结果。在这30秒内,你能做的事情不多,而且你肯定不能去找一个小组讨论决策树,然后再回到桌子上做决定。所以这是行不通的。

So in that case, what you can do is when you go and you work with whatever your true seeking group is that you've sort of formed together, the people that you deconstruct decisions with. Only describe the hand or the question or the decision up to the point that you need help and no further. So like an example I could give from poker would be okay, I've got a hand. Let's say I have King Queen and I open the pot for a raise and this other guy re-raises and he's very aggressive and he actually raises a lot and so I was trying to decide, you know, should I fold or maybe I should re-raise him. What do you think?
所以在这种情况下,你可以这样做:当你和那个你组建的、一起分析决策的团队讨论时,只描述你需要帮助的部分,不要多说。比如以打扑克为例,我有一手牌,比如说我有一个K和一个Q,然后我加注了,但有一个非常激进的玩家又加注,而他经常这样激进地加注,所以我在犹豫是不是该弃牌,或者我也加注回去。你怎么看?

So notice I don't, I know how the hand turned out. I know how the person responded. I know I would give a lot more detail than that leaving up to that but I know exactly what happened. But if I'm asking you, I'm not telling you because our own bias, these problems are infectious. So once I tell you the way it turned out, like let's say that I told you so I decided to re-raise and you then moved all in on me, you're going to now make a story make sense and you're going to now tell me about the decision in a way that's going to make the fact that that particular result happened make sense because that's just the way our minds like to work.
所以请注意,我并没有透露,我知道事情的结果。我知道某个人是如何回应的。我本来会给出更多的细节来解释这一过程,但我清楚地知道发生了什么。但如果我在问你,我并不是在告诉你,因为我们自身的偏见,这些问题是会传播的。一旦我告诉你结果,比如我告诉你我决定再加注,然后你就全押了,你就会开始编故事,让这个结果在故事中显得合理,因为我们的思维习惯就是这样运作的。

So I'm just going to leave it out and I'm only going to tell you to the point that I have a decision. So that's one thing I can do. Another thing I can do is to one person, I can tell you it worked out well and to another person I can tell them it worked out poorly. So I can change the story's end. I think that's a really interesting exercise to do because you will be amazed at how different the analyses you get, what the advice looks like from the person you tell that it ended well versus the person that you tell it ended poorly.
所以我打算不详细说,只在我做出决定时告诉你要点。这是我可以采取的一种做法。另一种做法是,对一个人我可以说结果很好,而对另一个人我可以说结果很糟糕。也就是说,我可以改变故事的结局。我认为这是一个非常有趣的试验,因为你会惊讶地发现,当你告诉一个人结果很好和告诉另一个人结果不好时,你得到的分析和建议竟然会如此不同。

And I think that then you can sort of look at those two things and kind of work to merge them together in order to get some fidelity and your ability to actually understand what the decision quality is. So that's like another way that you can sort of not infect people. And you can do this in a variety of ways, not just with outcomes but with your own beliefs. So like here's a really simple, so there's a simple problem which is like if you allow people to talk to each other, they sort of try to come to consensus and make beliefs make sense and you're infecting everybody with your beliefs.
我认为,你可以观察这两件事情,然后努力将它们结合起来,以便更准确地理解决策质量。这就是另一种方式,可以避免影响他人。不仅通过结果,也可以通过个人的信念来实现这一点。这是一个非常简单的问题:如果你让人们彼此交流,他们会试图达成共识,使各自的信念显得合理,而这实际上是在用你的信念影响他人。

So like here's an example, let's say that you have four people who have interviewed somebody that you're thinking about hiring. Don't let them talk to each other, make them give you their opinions right down their opinions separately. Because once they talk to each other, they're, there's all this that you've literally infected. It's like a virus. Another thing is like let's say that you're now in front of everybody and you've gotten the advice from people. And now you want to start talking in the room about the advice. Do not say who you think should be hired because that'll ruin the whole thing.
所以,这里有个例子,比如说你有四个人,他们分别面试了一个你考虑聘用的人。不要让他们互相交流,而是要求他们分别写下自己的意见。因为一旦他们开始互相交流,就会像感染了病毒一样,影响彼此的看法。还有一种情况,比如说你现在和大家在一起,并且已经收到了他们的意见。这时,你想开始在会议中讨论这些建议。不要说出你认为应该聘用谁,因为这样会破坏整个事情。

Right? So like keep, keep your own beliefs to yourself when you're trying to get advice from other people. And this is a simple like in everyday life, I read an article on politics. When, if I'm asking you what your opinion of the article is, I should not say what my belief about that is. Because then I've ruined the whole thing. So I think that that's really what you should do with it is kind of like unless you've got a large enough end, which is rare, you should kind of leave it out.
好的,所以当你向别人寻求建议时,尽量保持你的信仰和观点不说。这在日常生活中很简单,比如我读了一篇关于政治的文章,如果我想问你对这篇文章的看法,我不应该先说出自己的看法,因为这会影响到你的回答。我认为你应该这样做,除非你有足够多的证据支持你的信仰,而这通常是很少见的,所以你最好还是先不发表看法。

Where do, where do outcomes help you? Well, you know, obviously throughout your life as you kind of get them in, they might be prompts for you to go in and say, well, maybe I should look at the decision quality. But it should be both in the case of whether you want or loss, it should be a prompt to go in and look at the decision quality. And when you go in and look at the decision quality and you go want to talk to other people about it, you're going to do better because you've been prompted by the outcome to leave the outcome out as you're going to actually improve the decision quality.
结果在什么情况下对你有帮助呢?在你的人生过程中,结果显然会在某种程度上成为促使你审视决策质量的契机。无论是成功还是失败,结果都应该激励你去检查决策质量。当你开始关注决策质量并与他人讨论时,你会表现得更好。因为结果促使你将注意力从结果中抽离,这反而会提升你的决策质量。

It's a little counterintuitive. Now, there's some situations where just sitting out and not making the decision makes sense because you mentioned that most poker players, like 80% of the hands they don't make any actions on is like 20 to the play. Yeah, so, so in poker, one of the biggest mistakes that people make is actually playing way too many hands. And you always need to think about when you're actually going to enter into something you need to be selective.
这有点违反直觉。有些情况下,坐视不理、不做决策反而更合理。因为你提到,大多数扑克玩家有80%的牌局是在不采取行动的情况下进行的,只有20%的时候他们会参与。因此,在扑克游戏中,人们犯的最大错误之一就是参与过多的牌局。你总是需要仔细思考,决定参与的时候要有选择性。

So I want to talk about sort of both sides of this puzzle. One is that just doing stuff isn't enough. I mean, you think a lot of times people are just throwing a lot of spaghetti against the wall, but you should actually think about each strand and make sure you're getting a payoff for the strand. So the fact is, yes, if you throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall, some of that will pay off and some of it won't. But like, and I think that people look at that and they look at, for example, VCs and they think what that's what their strategy is, that they're just sort of like playing every hand and then some of them pay off.
所以我想谈谈这个问题的两个方面。首先,仅仅采取行动是不够的。很多时候,人们就像是把大量意大利面扔到墙上,但实际上你应该仔细考虑每一根,并确保它们都能有所回报。事实是,是的,如果你把一堆意大利面扔到墙上,其中一些会有回报,而另一些则不会。但我认为,人们往往会看到这种情况,并以为像风险投资公司(VCs)这样的策略就是这样——他们似乎在每只手上下注,然后有些会有回报。

And when they pay off, they're really happy, but that's not true. They are spreading their bets across a large basket, but they're actually vetting each of the bets that they're making to make sure that they, given what they know, they think that the payoff is going to be big enough. So that's similar to what a poker player does. So that's number one. But then number two that I think is really important to think about is that don't take that to the point of thinking that somehow making a decision is substantively different from not making a decision, because they're both decisions. So you have whatever the status quo is.
翻译成中文: 当他们获得回报时,他们感到非常高兴,但事实并非如此。他们将赌注分散到一个大篮子里,但实际上他们在仔细审查他们所做的每一个赌注,以确保根据他们所知道的,他们认为回报会足够大。这与扑克玩家的做法相似。这是第一点。但第二点,我认为非常重要的是,不要把这种想法推到极端,认为做决定与不做决定有本质上的不同,因为它们都是决定。你有现状,无论是什么现状。

And when you're going along and just kind of going with the status quo, trust me, you're making a decision every single time you do that. So I think that when we're trying to sort of think about doing these scenario plans and imagining what the future might look like, we only think about it in terms of decisions that we think are new. We're somehow we're changing course, but not changing course is a decision in and of itself. So you should be taking time frequently to look at what the status quo is, to look at what you're doing, the strategies that you've always just kind of been applying, and do the exact same kind of analysis on that as if it were a new decision.
当你习惯于随波逐流地按照现状行事时,请相信我,每次你这样做的时候,其实都在做一个决定。所以,我认为当我们试图进行情景规划并想象未来可能会是什么样时,我们往往只把注意力放在那些看起来是新决定的事情上。我们以为这些决定是在改变方向,但实际上不改变方向本身也是一种决定。因此,你应该经常花时间去审视一下现状,看看自己正在做的事情,以及你一直以来所采用的策略,并对这些事情进行分析,就像对待一个新决定一样。

So let me give you like a super simple example, so like the simplest example ever. You're in a grocery store and there's like six lanes open and you're Einstein at this moment. Like you're literally doing some kind of quantum physics analysis about which line you're supposed to get into. You're laughing because you know it's true. So it's like you're looking for the lady with the coupons and the cashier that looks maybe like, you know, oh, he seems a little slower, he's newer, he's a trainee, or the person who has 17,000 things in their cart versus whatever. I mean, it's like literally like you are completely calculating the stuff out.
让我给你举一个超级简单的例子,就像是最简单的例子。你在一家杂货店,有六个收银通道开放,此刻你就像爱因斯坦一样。你在进行某种量子物理分析,思考应该进入哪个通道。你笑了,因为你知道这是真的。你在寻找用优惠券的那位女士,或者看起来有点慢、可能是新手或实习生的收银员,或者挑着满满一购物车的那个人。可以说,你完全在计算这些因素。

Okay, so now, so because that's a new decision, right? So you're like calculating out all the scenarios, trying to figure out like, which is going to give me the best future because you're now investing your time, right? So this is like, this is very clearly a bet. You're betting on a line. And you think that the U that results from choosing whatever line it is that you go to is going to save time over the U that results from whatever other line you might choose.
好的,所以,现在因为这是一个新的决定,对吧?所以你在计算各种方案,试图弄清楚哪种选择会给你带来更好的未来,因为你正在投入你的时间。所以这很明显是一次赌博。你是在赌一个选择,你认为选择了某一条路后能为你省下的时间,比选择其他任何路线后所能省下的更多。

So that's like your, and that's what most bets are. You're not betting against other people. You're betting against other versions of yourself, right? Like Annie that chooses line A versus Annie that chooses line B or like I'm in the restaurant. Annie that chooses the chicken or Annie that chooses the fish or whatever. So Annie that chooses Des Moines versus Annie that chooses Las Vegas. Okay, so now you choose a line and you get in the line and the line turns out to be slow. What do you do? Not you stay in the line. You don't move. But it's a new decision.
所以这就像是你的选择,而大多数的赌注都是这样来的。你不是在跟别人对赌,而是在跟可能的另一个自己对赌。比如,选择路线A的Annie和选择路线B的Annie,或者是在餐厅里,选择鸡肉的Annie和选择鱼肉的Annie,又或者是选择得梅因的Annie和选择拉斯维加斯的Annie。 好,现在你选择了一条队列并排进去,结果发现这条队列很慢。你会怎么做呢?你可能会选择继续留在这条队列里不动,但这本身又是一个新的决定。

Like once you figure out the line is slow, switch. But you don't because you know why? Because you're worried about like now if I switch, what if that line, my line starts moving faster? I'll feel like I made a mistake. But at any moment it's the same decision. So if you treat the status quo as if like that's not a decision in another self. What happens is you actually end up not changing course enough. So this actually we can go back to the Pete Carroll example to think about this.
一旦你意识到这条排队的队伍很慢,你会想换到另一条。但你没有这样做,因为你知道为什么吗?因为你在担心,如果我现在换过去,万一我原来的队伍开始移动得更快呢?那我会觉得自己做错了。然而,每一刻其实都是同样的决策。所以,如果你把现状当成不是一个决策的选择,会导致你实际上没有足够地改变方向。我们可以回到皮特·卡罗尔的例子来思考这个问题。

Let's do the other thought experiment where Pete Carroll just doesn't change his grocery line. Right? So he hands it off to Marshawn Lynch. Right? That was the expected play. That's the status quo play. And let's say he doesn't score. What do you think the headlines look like the next day? Knowing Lynch's good. You know, like literally nobody's like, oh, he's the worst coach in Super Bowl history because he handed off to Marshawn Lynch and he didn't score. Why? Because people aren't viewing that as a decision. Right? Like that's just the status quo. We already have consensus around that. Clearly if he doesn't win, then it's not the decision quality. Now we can firmly stick it in the luck bucket because nobody's questioning the status quo.
让我们来做另一个思想实验:假设皮特·卡罗尔在排队结账时并没有换到其他队列。对吧?所以他把球传给马肖恩·林奇。对吧?这是预期的战术,也是维持现状的选择。假设林奇没有得分,你觉得第二天的头条会是什么样?大家都知道林奇很棒,没人会因为卡罗尔把球传给林奇但没有得分就说他是超级碗历史上最差劲的教练。为什么?因为人们不把那当作一个决策,那只是维持现状。大家早就对此达成共识。如果球队没赢,那问题不在于决策,而是运气,因为没人质疑这种常规做法。

So now I must be something that's outside of his control. So included in luck would be, for example, the quality of the defensive line of New England would be included in luck. Luck is anything that you yourself don't control. Okay? So and that's because like, all right, he chose his grocery line. Like he's not switching. So the reason why Pete Carroll got so demolished in that decision is because he switched grocery lines. But he was right to do that. Like that's how progress gets made.
所以现在我必须是某种超出他控制范围的东西。那么运气就包括了一些,比如,新英格兰防线的质量也算作运气的一部分。运气就是指那些你自己无法控制的东西,对吧?因为,就像他选择了排队的队伍一样,他没有换队伍。所以,Pete Carroll在那个决定上被猛烈批评的原因是因为他改变了队伍。但他这样做是对的,因为这就是进步的方式。

Mm-hmm. And I find our daily lives too sometimes. After a result happens, we'll look at the person made a decision and then we'll say to ourselves, well, if it went their way, then odds are, it's luck. But if it would have failed, it's like, you know, it's mostly due to their like, incompetencies or whatnot. Do we, is there mechanisms where we can be more like cognizant of that when we fall into that mode that you talked about?
嗯,我也发现我们的日常生活中经常会这样。在结果出来之后,我们会看做出决定的人,然后对自己说,如果结果符合了他们的预期,那可能是运气好。但如果失败了,我们就会认为,这主要是因为他们的无能之类的。有没有什么机制能让我们在进入这种思维方式时更加察觉到呢?

Yeah. So I, so I've talked about this particular thing resulting, which is where we like really tightly connect outcomes and decisions. So, but there's two ways that we do this. One is like, we're looking at someone from afar like Pete Carroll. Okay? So he's not in our reference group, right? Like we don't compare ourselves to him. And so in that case, we just look like bad outcome means bad decision, good outcome means good decision. So it's interesting because we do a pattern for ourselves. It's a little bit different.
好的。那么我之前讨论过这个特定的话题,就是我们如何紧密地将结果和决策联系在一起。然而,我们有两种方式来做到这一点。一种是,当我们从远处观察某个人,比如皮特·卡罗尔,我们并不把自己和他进行比较。在这种情况下,我们通常会认为坏结果意味着糟糕的决策,而好结果意味着成功的决策。有趣的是,当我们审视自己的时候,我们所采用的模式会有一些不同。

So if anybody's read like thinking fast and slow from Daniel Coniman, you'll remember from this from this that we're really trying to drive a positive narrative of our lives, right? We want to think that we're good actors and we're smart and so on and so forth. So obviously, this goes in the motor rate of reasoning category. Like if we have a bad outcome for ourselves, if I lose a hand at poker, that doesn't really drive with this positive self narrative, at least not in the moment. Okay?
所以如果有人读过丹尼尔·卡尼曼的《思考,快与慢》,你会记得我们试图为自己的人生打造一个积极的叙述,对吧?我们希望认为自己是好人,聪明等等。因此,这显然属于理性推理的范畴。比如说,如果我们遇到不好的结果,比如在扑克游戏中输了一手牌,那时刻可能不会符合我们积极的自我叙述,对吧?

So then what do we do? Now remember, we've got this noise in the system, right? We've got the hidden information in luck. When I have a bad, when I lose a hand at poker, it's because of luck. When I win a hand at poker, it's because I'm a genius. That's called self-serving bias. I feel it's pretty self-explanatory name for that particular bias. And we do this in all areas of our lives when someone gets a promotion. It's bad luck for us. It's not like we didn't do the work or we didn't, obviously we deserved it. It was just like bad luck. It wasn't in our control.
那么,我们该怎么办呢?记住,我们系统中存在这些噪声,对吧?我们还有运气中的隐藏信息。当我打扑克输掉一局时,那是因为运气不好;而当我赢了一局时,那是因为我很聪明。这就是所谓的自利性偏差。我觉得对这种偏差来说,这个名字已经很直白了。我们在生活中的各个方面都会表现出这种倾向。例如,当别人升职时,我们认为对我们来说是运气不好。并不是因为我们没有努力工作或不配升职,而只是因为运气不好。这是我们无法控制的。

Actually car accidents are an interesting place to look. Over 90% of two car accidents are reported as the other person's fault. This is a pretty good one. I think it's 37% I think of single car accidents as reported as not the person's fault. I don't know. You go figure that one out. That's how strong this bias is. Now what's interesting is, but the number of decisions that we make in our lives is obviously much less than the number of decisions we're able to observe in other people.
其实,交通事故是一个很有趣的研究对象。在两辆车相撞的事故中,有超过90%的事故被报告为是另一方的错。这还挺有意思的。我记得,大约有37%的单车事故也被报告为不是车主的错。我不太清楚,你可以自己想想,这种偏见有多强烈。令人感兴趣的是,我们在生活中做出的决定数量显然比我们能够观察到的其他人做出的决定要少得多。

Let's assume that we're crappy for ourselves, but it doesn't matter. Then we get to feel good about ourselves, but we're really good at analyzing everybody else's decisions. But the problem is as soon as someone's in our reference group, as soon as someone that we feel like we're comparing ourselves to and sort of figure out what our self-worth is. Because we don't do that. Our happiness doesn't derive an absence of the way that we compare to other people.
假设我们对自己很苛刻,但这没关系。这样我们就可以觉得自己不错,但我们其实很擅长分析别人的决定。不过问题是,一旦有人成为我们的比较对象,一旦我们觉得需要将自己与他们比较来确认我们的自我价值时,就出现了问题。因为我们并不是这样做的。我们的幸福并不是来自我们和他人比较的结果。

Now what we do is the reverse pattern. When they do something good, it's because they got lucky. And when they do something bad, it's because they're a really bad decision maker. So when they win a hand of poker, it's because they got lucky. And when they lose a hand of poker, it's because they're a bad decision maker. Now you can kind of see actually if you think about poker, which is zero sum, how these two problems might have emerged, right? Because looking at a zero sum game like poker, you can see how that pattern happens.
现在我们采取相反的模式。当他们做得好的时候,就说是因为他们运气好;而当他们做得不好的时候,就说是因为他们决策能力差。比如,当他们赢了一局扑克牌,就说是因为他们运气好;而当他们输了一局,就说是因为他们决策能力差。通过观察扑克牌这种零和游戏,你可以看出这种模式是怎么出现的,对吗?因为在零和游戏中,这种现象很容易发生。

So if I'm trying to offload my bad results to luck, and I lose a hand specifically to you, I can't say that you won the hand because of skill. That doesn't work. So I have to say that you lost the hand because of luck. Because I'm trying to put my bad, you know, I'm trying to say it's bad luck for me. So therefore it must be good luck for you. And if I win a hand because of a lot of skill, rather, I can't say that you lost because of luck. It doesn't jive. It's just that, you know, so we sort of treat everything like it's zero sum, like when we shouldn't. But you can see how that happens when I specifically think I'm referring to you, when you're in my reference group, right?
所以,如果我试图把我的坏成绩归咎于运气,而我恰好输给了你一手牌,我无法说是因为你的技巧赢了这手牌。这行不通。我得说是因为运气我才输了,因为我想把这归结为我的霉运。因此,对你来说就是好运。如果我赢了一手牌是因为技巧,我也不能说是你因为运气差才输的。这不搭调。我们常常把一切看作是零和游戏,而实际上不应该这样。但你可以看到这种情况是如何发生的,特别是当我明确地认为正在针对你时,你就在我的参考群体中,对吧?

So again, like how do we solve for this? Well, I'm going to go back to that group idea. Form a really, really good decision group that has different values. So there's different ways that we can derive good feelings from ourselves, right? So our natural tendency is to try to offload it in the moment so that we don't have to have a negative update to our self image. And we don't ever miss out on a positive update to our self image, right? Because if I say that I won because I got lucky, I don't get that positive update. And if I say that I lost because of something I did, I don't get that positive update.
所以,再次强调一下,我们该如何解决这个问题呢?我倾向于回到团队的概念。组建一个真正优秀的决策小组,这个小组的成员拥有不同的价值观。这样我们就可以通过不同的方式从自身汲取积极的情感。我们天生倾向于在当下避免对自我形象的负面更新,而确保不会错过对自我形象的正面更新。比如,如果我说自己获胜是因为运气好,就无法获得正面的自我反馈。如果我说自己失败是因为自己的失误,同样也得不到正面的反馈。

And that's the natural way that we're like getting our pellets, like we're pressing a lever in a Skinner box. Is that that's where our pellets are coming from. But very early in my poker career, I went up to somebody named Eric Sidel, who's an amazing poker player. He's won over $38 million in his career. So he's really, really good. I had met him when I was actually 16, and I didn't start playing poker professionally until I was 26. So he was just like a buddy of mine. And then all of a sudden, I'm 26, and now he's a professional peer. So I remember I was in a tournament, I got knocked out, you know, and obviously something unlucky happened to me, clearly.
这就是我们获得奖励的自然方式,就像在斯金纳箱里按下杠杆一样。我们的奖励就是这样来的。不过,在我扑克生涯的早期,我去找了一位名叫埃里克·塞德尔的高手,他是一名了不起的扑克选手,职业生涯中赢得了超过3800万美元的奖金。他真的非常厉害。我16岁时就认识了他,但直到26岁才开始职业扑克生涯。那时他只是我的一个朋友,突然之间,当我26岁时,他成了我的职业同僚。我记得有一次参赛时被淘汰了,显然是因为我遇到了不走运的事情。

And I went up to Eric Sidel, and I went to go, what's called moaning. I went to go complain to him about, I can't believe this, I had such bad luck. I had this hand, the normal. And he actually laid this out for me. How do we solve for this in like the most beautiful way? It's going to sound kind of brutal, but I'm so thankful for it. So why are you telling me this? Like you think I'm not losing myself? Like why are you offloading your negative emotions onto me? I don't need that. If you really lost because of bad luck, there's nothing to be learned from it.
我走到埃里克·赛德尔面前,准备向他抱怨,即所谓的“呻吟”。我想跟他说,我真不敢相信,我运气太差了,我拿到了一手牌,却还是输了,就像平常一样。他其实非常清晰地给我分析了一下如何用一种最美妙的方式解决这个问题。听起来可能有点残酷,但我非常感激他这么说。他问我:“你为什么要告诉我这些?你觉得我自己没有输过吗?你为什么要把你的负面情绪转嫁到我身上?我不需要这些。如果你真的是因为运气不好才输的,那就没有什么可学的。”

So I would like you to not offload your emotional distress onto me. Thank you very much. However, if you have a question, if there's something that you're trying to ask me about strategy, I'm all ears. So let's think about what he did there. He said, if you're not focusing on accuracy, I don't care. What does that mean, this focus on accuracy? Let's think about the division between the distinction between reasoning to be accurate and reasoning to be right. Reasoning to be right is I just want my priors to be right. So I'm just going to reason to prove that I'm right all the time.
所以,我希望你不要把你的情绪困扰转嫁到我身上,非常感谢。不过,如果你有问题,或者想问我一些关于策略的事情,我非常乐意倾听。让我来分析一下他做了什么。他说,如果你不专注于准确性,我不在乎。这种对准确性的关注是什么意思呢?让我们思考一下准确推理和正确推理之间的区别。正确推理是指我只是想证明我之前的观点是对的,所以我会一直推理来证明自己是对的。

Reasoning to be accurate, that's funny that I said right, right after that. Reasoning to be accurate is I'm trying to construct the most accurate model of the objective truth. And if you think about who's going to win in a bet, the person who's reasoning to be right versus the person who's reason to be accurate, that's why when I say to you, do you want a bet? It takes you out of the right mode, right into the accurate mode, because everybody understands, like, if I'm going to bet on it, I better be reasoning to be accurate.
为了准确推理,这很有趣,我刚才说的"对"之后又说了一遍。追求准确的推理是因为我要尽量构建一个与客观真相最贴近的模型。如果你考虑一下谁会在赌注中获胜,是那个追求正确的人,还是追求准确的人,这就是为什么我问你,“要不要打赌?”这会让你从追求“对”的状态切换到追求“准”的状态,因为大家都明白,如果我要下注,我必须确保自己的推理准确。

So he told me, you have to be reasoning to be accurate. What you're doing right now is reasoning to be right. You're sad. You lost. It's not your fault. Blah, blah, blah. That doesn't help anybody. But if you have a question, if you want to know whether you accurately play the hand, let's talk about it. So he told me that I have to think about accuracy if I'm talking to him. He told me he was going to be held, hold me accountable to that, because he did in that moment. He was holding me accountable to the way I was thinking.
他告诉我,你需要为了准确性而进行推理。而你现在所做的是为了证明自己是对的而推理。你感到难过,你输了,但这不是你的错。这样想对任何人都没有帮助。但如果你有疑问,想知道自己是否准确地打了那手牌,那我们可以谈谈。他说,如果我要和他交流,就必须考虑准确性,因为当时他确实在要求我对此负责。他正在督促我对自己的思维方式负责。

And he said you're going to have to be open to maybe things aren't the way that you want them to be. So I was going to have to be open to diverse opinions and other people's perspectives. So let's take those three things as a great group charter, right? You have to have a focus on accuracy, a commitment to accuracy. You have to hold each other accountable to these things. And you have to be open to diverse viewpoints. That seems like a pretty good charter.
他说,你必须接受现实可能并不是你所希望的那样。所以,我需要对不同的意见和别人的观点持开放态度。让我们把这三点作为一个优秀的团队准则吧:你需要关注准确性,对准确性有承诺。你们要彼此监督,确保遵循这些原则。同时,还要对各种不同的观点保持开放。这似乎是个很不错的准则。

And what's really wonderful about what Eric did for me in that moment, we remain friends, because I was thankful for this. I was a little upset in the moment, but I got over it. I saw the value eventually. But what he did for me was two things. One is, now I understood that when I went and talked to him, he was going to mentor me. He was going to teach me how to play. So when I had hand questions, I could actually deconstruct them with him. And that was going to be super helpful for me. So that was a little bit of the help. But the big help he gave me was when I went back and played on my own. So when you're playing poker, it's all on your own. I was processing what was happening at the table differently. So I'm not processing, oh, I got unlucky, oh, I'm so smart. Oh, I got unlucky, oh, I'm so smart. Because that's not good material for me to go back to Eric with.
在那个时刻,Eric为我所做的事情真的很了不起,因此我们一直保持着朋友关系,因为我对此心怀感激。尽管当时我有些不满,但最终我还是理解了其中的价值。他为我做了两件事。首先,我明白了当我去找他时,他会指导我、教我如何玩牌。这样,当我对牌有疑问时,可以和他一起分析,这对我非常有帮助。但更重要的帮助在于,当我独自玩牌时,我开始以不同的方式分析桌上的情况。我不再只是简单地认为自己运气不好或聪明,因为这样的想法对我去找Eric请教没有帮助。

And I know later on he's going to hold me accountable. And if I want to have a really good discussion with him, I have to come to him with good material. So now it changes the way that I'm viewing what's happening at the table in the moment. So that I'm looking for mistakes. I'm looking for questions. I'm looking for other people where other people might be out playing me, where they might be winning because they're better than I am. And I'm going to go tell him, and now this is what happens. This is so great. Two great things happen from that. Thing number one, I go back to him and I say, you know what? I think I really butchered the hand. I think I really made a mistake. And he gives me a pellet. So he wasn't giving me pellets for pressing the luck. I just got unlucky lever. He's giving me pellets for that. I think I made a mistake lever.
我知道以后他会让我负责。如果我想和他进行一次非常好的讨论,我必须带着充分的材料去找他。因此,这改变了我当下对桌上发生事情的看法。我开始寻找错误,寻找问题,观察其他人是否在游戏表现上超过了我,他们可能因为比我更优秀而赢。我会把这些告诉他,然后就会发生这样的事情。这太棒了,因为有两件好事发生了。第一件事情是,我回去找他,说:“你知道吗?我觉得我在这手牌上真是搞砸了,我认为我真的犯了个错误。” 然后他给了我一个奖励。他不是因为我运气不好而奖赏我,而是因为我承认自己可能犯了错误而奖赏我。

So that's really great. So now that becomes part of my self-narrative. Eric's side-out wants to talk to me. He thinks I'm smart. So I'm getting those. I'm not like I practice mindfulness, but I don't think I'm ever achieving like on the mountain and to bat, not worried about what the world thinks of me. I'm trying, but I'm not going to get there. So Eric's side-out is giving me that. He's helping me to think better by giving me the right kind of pellet. That's number one. And then number two, again, back to the, I'm trying to be a monk on top of a mountain and to bat. I'm really trying hard for that, that ultimate mindfulness practice, but I'm kind of failing at it. But I'm working on it. I'm trying. I'm practicing it.
这真是太好了。现在这成为了我自我叙述的一部分。Eric's side-out想和我交谈,他觉得我很聪明。所以我得到了这些。虽然我有练习正念,但我觉得自己从未达到那种高僧不在乎世俗看法的境界。我在努力,但可能达不到。不过Eric's side-out给了我一些帮助,他通过给我正确的“激励”来帮助我更好地思考。 这是第一点。然后第二点,还是回到那个,我努力成为山顶上的僧人,达到终极的正念实践。我真的在为此而努力,但有点做不到。然而,我一直在努力练习。

But in the meantime, if we go back to that tribalism and how does our tribe feel distinct from others, think about what it did for me when I walked up to Eric in my group and I was saying, I really think I made a mistake. But when I'm walking down the hall of the poker room, I'm hearing all these people go, can you believe how unlucky? I got, yeah, I got so unlucky too. Yeah, oh, that guy's an idiot. Dada, da, da, da. And that's what those tribes are, how they're talking to each other. So I got my distinctiveness in the mix too. So it's like I got my cake and I got to eat it too, which was kind of good. And then in the meantime, I'm doing a mindfulness practice and trying not to worry about any of that. But until I can't, until I get there, I get to reinforce all of these good changes and cognitive style through what the group is giving me.
与此同时,如果我们回到部落主义这个话题,讨论我们的部落如何与其他部落区别开来,想想当我走到我们小组的Eric面前时,我心里想着,我真的觉得我犯了个错误。但是,当我走在扑克牌室的走廊里时,我听到身边的人都在说:“你能相信我有多倒霉吗?”“是啊,我也很倒霉。”“哦,那家伙真是个白痴。”这些就是那些部落成员之间的对话方式。因此,我也在其中找到了自己的独特性。我既能够守住我的内心,也能享受过程,这感觉还不错。同时,我在进行静心练习,尽量不去担心这些事情。但至少在目前,我能够通过小组带给我的帮助,来巩固所有这些积极的改变和思维方式。

So I want to ask you one more question before I go to the audience. It seems like what you're talking about is not just applicable to the poker world. No, for sure. Yeah, I see the investment world. I see family, things like that. Where have you seen these skills kind of like spill over for you in your life? Oh my gosh, everywhere. So I want to say two things. One is these skills have definitely spilled over in all areas of my life and I'm terrible at them. So the thing is, the way that we process information is so built in that your goal is really to be a little bit better at it. And if you're a little bit better at it, it's going to compound over time. It's going to really make a difference in your overall decision quality and the quality of the outcomes that you eventually have.
在我请观众提问之前,我想再问你一个问题。你所谈到的内容似乎不仅仅适用于扑克世界。是的,确实如此。我在投资领域看到过这些,在家庭等方面也是如此。在你生活中,这些技能在哪些方面有所体现呢?哦,我的天,到处都是!我想说两点:首先,这些技能确实在我生活的各个领域都有体现,而我对这些技能的掌握其实并不算好。因为我们处理信息的方式已经根深蒂固,你的目标是让自己在这方面稍微进步一点点。如果你能做到这一点,那么它会随着时间的推移积累起来,极大地提升你的整体决策质量以及你最终获得的结果的质量。

So I still mess up all the time. Trust me, bad things have to me. I go, can blue that also and lucky. It's just that I catch myself hopefully more often and hopefully a little bit faster than I otherwise would. But I know I'm still missing a lot of those. I mean, I'm still biased. So that's number one. But number two in terms of areas in my life, like everywhere. So in the way that I parent my children and the way that I talk to my partner and the way that the process of writing this book, where you have to be like you're working with an editor and you have to not sort of like push off what they're saying because you feel so much ownership over the words and you know better than they do. It's like trying to have open mindedness and really use the editor and your agent and so and so forth is like that kind of true seeking group that you're trying to come up with the best representation of your ideas. That's not necessarily all the ideas of how you think it should be presented. That you have to be open minded to that.
所以,我仍然经常搞砸。相信我,坏事发生在我身上。我可以也很幸运地走出困境。只是我希望自己能更频繁、更迅速地意识到自己的错误,但我知道我仍然遗漏了很多。我是说,我仍然有偏见。这是第一点。第二,关于我生活的各个领域,比如无处不在。在我抚养孩子的方式上,在我和伴侣交流的方式上,以及在写这本书的过程中,你必须和编辑合作,不能因为觉得对这些文字有太多的掌控感而不接受他们的意见,你觉得自己比他们更了解。就像是要努力保持开放的心态,真正利用编辑和经纪人等,像一个真正的寻求真理的小组,与你一起努力呈现你想法的最佳表达。这不一定是你认为应该呈现的方式。你必须对这些意见保持开放心态。

You know, just like I say, like in terms of the way that I talk to my kids and I guide my kids, like every teenager that has raised comes back. And so I can't believe I did so bad on the test because the teacher was mean and they gave me things that they didn't even teach in class and it was really hard and you can ask anybody. Right? So like how are you talking to somebody about that and saying, well with kids, it's you don't want to be challenging them in the same way but you say, okay, that's, I'm sorry about that. So what are you going to do about that? In the future, how do you think you're going to solve for that? So really trying to get them to understand like what are the things that are under your control and what aren't. So not in an aerosol del way, but trying to say like, okay, how can you do better? Like how can you make it so that maybe you should go talk to the teacher before the next test if you know they might put things on the test that they didn't teach?
你知道,就像我跟我的孩子交流和引导他们时,我常常这样说:每个成长中的青少年都会抱怨“我在考试中做得不好,因为老师不友好,考的内容甚至没在课堂上教过,非常难,你可以问任何人。”那么,当你和孩子谈论这个问题时,你不想直接挑战他们的说法,而是说:“哦,关于这件事我很遗憾听到。那么你打算怎么解决这个问题呢?将来你想怎样避免这样的情况?”其实是想让他们明白哪些事情是自己可以掌控的,哪些是无法控制的。不是用一种讽刺或打击的方式,而是引导他们思考:“你怎样才能做得更好?也许下次考试前,你应该去找老师谈谈,如果你知道他们可能会考没教过的内容?”

So like that, you know, not so much disagreeing with them because they're not adults, but trying to get them to focus more on those things that are in their control. But also just in terms of like when I was writing the book, I was thinking like, okay, it's going to be a certain amount of time that I'm going to have to invest. What, you know, am I going to get, what am I going to get in return? What does the future look like? Like I thought about the book could be a total flop. I have to think about that in advance and is that going to feel okay for me? Is it going to be worthwhile to have written the book even if nobody ever reads it? So it's like really kind of everywhere.
所以,就像这样,你知道,不是说完全要与他们意见相左,因为他们还不是成年人,而是试着让他们更多地关注那些可以掌控的事情。同样地,就像我在写这本书的时候,我想着,好的,我需要投入一定的时间。我会得到什么回报呢?未来会是什么样的?就像我想过,这本书可能会完全失败。我需要提前考虑这些,并且问自己,如果真是这样,我会觉得没问题吗?即使没有人读这本书,它的写作过程对我来说值得吗?所以这真的涉及方方面面的考虑。

And then, you know, really recognizing, the other thing is I'm a big believer in Ulysses contracts because I really understand that as much as you. Sorry, I'm a Ulysses contractor. I'm going to be good. Sorry. You're right, I'm assuming. So Ulysses contract is thinking in advance about places where you know you're going to be really biased and it's going to be hard to overcome this in order to kind of prevent yourself from acting irrationally. So we don't always have a group of other people around us to help us, but you can actually form a different kind of group, which is a group of the past versions of you and the future versions of you to all kind of come to help gather and help the present version of you.
然后,你知道,真正意识到的另一件事是,我非常相信“尤利西斯合约”,因为我深刻理解这件事,就像你一样。抱歉,我是一个尤利西斯合约的践行者。我会表现好的。对不起,你是对的,我在假设。因此,“尤利西斯合约”就是提前考虑那些你知道自己会有很大偏见并且难以克服的情形,以此来防止自己做出不理性的行为。我们身边不总是有一群人可以帮助我们,但实际上你可以形成一种不同的“群体”,这个群体由过去的你和未来的你组成,它们共同来帮助现在的你。

So the classic example is from Greek literature. Odysseus was, you know, sailing along and he knew who was going to come to the island of the sirens. And the sirens were these beautiful nymphs that sang on the shore and the song was so irresistible to the ears of any man that they would steer their ship toward the shore. The shore was a rocky shell that would break the ship apart, sudden death. So Ulysses, which is the Roman name for Odysseus, knew this and asked his crew to tie his hands to the mast of the ship. So this is a really good example of forming a group that's different versions of you.
这个经典例子来自希腊文学。你知道,奥德修斯正在航行,他知道自己即将到达海妖所在的岛屿。海妖是岸边唱歌的美丽精灵,她们的歌声令任何男人都无法抗拒,以至于会把船驶向海岸。然而,那里的海岸布满暗礁,船只会因此破碎,船员们也会立即丧命。所以,オデッセイ,罗马名称为尤利西斯,了解到这一情况后,请求船员将他的双手绑在船的桅杆上。这是一个很好的例子,展示了如何形成与自己不同的多个版本之间的合作。

So Odysseus said future Odysseus is really going to have a problem because future Odysseus is going to stare toward the shore. So I'm going to tie future Odysseus's hands to stop him from doing that. So I think there's all sorts of places where you can recognize that you might need help in the future. Like a simple example would be take a ride sharing service to a bar. That's a way to tie your hands. For me, with exercising, I sign up for classes in advance so that I've got my schedule worked out and I feel that I have a commitment to that. I only have certain kinds of foods in the house. These are all examples of Ulysses contracts.
奥德修斯说,未来的奥德修斯可能会有麻烦,因为他会不停地盯着岸边看。所以他决定把未来的奥德修斯的手绑起来,以防止这种情况发生。这就像我们在生活中需要为未来做好准备一样。比如说,去酒吧时叫一辆共享汽车服务,这就相当于提前给自己设定限制;对于我来说,我会提前预约锻炼课程,这样就能安排好我的时间表,同时也让我觉得有责任去参加。我只在家里放某些特定的食物。这些都是“乌利西斯契约”的例子,通过这些方法,你可以在需要帮助的时候提前给自己施加一些限制和约束。

And I'm a huge fan of those. And I apply those across my whole life, including actually in writing the book, which was instead of ever letting my editor set the deadline for me because that is more like someone telling me what to do which doesn't feel like a contract. I set all my own deadlines. So I would tell her what day. I actually would usually give her three days in a confidence interval around each one. Because obviously, because I wrote this book. So it would be with it. But there would be a week that I would know that I had to turn it in. And I would say Monday, it's 60% on Monday, and 80% on Tuesday, and I'm 98% on Friday. So by setting that myself, I was creating a contract. And then I held to the deadline, and I actually got the book in early because I was applying Ulysses contracts. So I really do practice what I preach in the book. I think it's an excellent concept. And I'm just realizing, oh my god, I didn't see that.
我非常喜欢这种方法,并且在生活的方方面面都应用了它,包括写书的时候。通常,编辑会给作者设定截止日期,但那种情况让我觉得像是被人命令,缺乏一种合同的感觉。所以我自己设定了所有的截止日期,会提前告诉编辑具体哪一天交稿。我通常会给出一个范围,比如在一周内的某一天是60%的可能性,某一天是80%,而到了星期五是98%。通过自定截止日期,我其实是在为自己建立一种契约,然后我会严格遵守这个期限,结果我还提前完成了书稿。这实际上是因为我在运用一种叫做“尤利西斯合约”的方法,所以我真的在践行书中的理念。我觉得这是一个非常好的概念,直到现在我才意识到这一点,真是让我惊讶!

Because I was writing a letter to someone and I was making a reference to the sirens in their song. So that's excellent. Do we have any audience questions? Sure. Let's start here, because you were my poker opponent. And then I'll move across the line. Yeah, it's great to have you here. My wife is a big family. Oh, thank you. A couple from China, just noticed your career part is very interesting from academia, then poker player. Now you change the other causes. So what kind of a, you talk about decision making, right? Just for your life, based on your life experience, what kind of bad or big those kind of, when you make those decisions, what you did, it's naturally come to that decision, or sometimes you really think about the during block some time and, oh, OK, I need to change.
因为我在给某人写信,并提到了他们歌曲中的警笛声。所以那很棒。我们有观众提问吗?当然有。我们从这里开始吧,因为你曾是我的扑克牌对手。然后我会依次回答。很高兴你在这里。我的妻子是个大家庭的一员。哦,谢谢。我们是一对来自中国的夫妇,非常注意到你的职业路径非常有趣,从学术界到扑克牌玩家,现在又改变了方向。因此,你谈论的是关于决策,对吧?根据你的生活经验,在做出这些决策时,你是怎样进行的?这些决定是自然而然做出的,还是有时候你会花时间认真思考,然后觉得哦,好吧,我需要改变。

Yeah, that's basically. Hi. So that's an interesting question. So yeah, I mean, I have taken a lot of turns. And I actually think that my life is a good example of really understanding kind of this luck versus decision quality. So I would say that the two big careers that I've had have come out of something happens that's either sort of, on the face of it looks lucky or unlucky, but it's definitely an intervention of luck. And then I just say, OK, here I am. Now let me think about where I'm going to go from here. So it's not sort of sitting and wallowing in the sort of luck element of it, but just thinking, OK, I'm here now. So now, all right, that's done. I've got to sort of figure out where to go from here.
好的,基本就是这样。你好。这是个有趣的问题。我的人生经历了很多转折,我认为我的生活很好地体现了运气和决策质量之间的关系。我有过两大职业生涯,都是因为一些看似幸运或不幸的事情发生,再加上一点运气介入。然后我就想着,“好吧,我现在在这里。我要考虑下一步该怎么走。”这并不是沉溺于好运或坏运,而是想着,“好,现在这样了,我得想想接下来该怎么前进。”

So the first one would be this illness that landed me in the hospital for two weeks. I still sometimes struggle with it, but I've got, it was very out of control at that time, and now I've got it under control, so it doesn't intervene in my life in the same way anymore. But this was when I was really struggling with the stomach issue. I land in the hospital for two weeks. This seems like an incredibly unlucky thing that's happened to me. And I say, OK, I need money. What am I going to do? I don't have my fellowship anymore. It turns out that when you leave graduate school and take time off, the National Science Foundation doesn't still give you money. So all right, I got to figure out what I'm going to do, and that's when I started playing poker.
所以,第一个例子就是这个让我住院两周的疾病。我有时仍然会被其困扰,但那时情况非常失控,而现在我已经能控制住它了,所以它不再以同样的方式干扰我的生活。但在我住院的那段时间,我的胃病真的很严重。住院两周对我来说似乎是极其不幸的事情。当时我想,我需要钱,该怎么办?我没有奖学金了。原来当你从研究生院休学时,国家科学基金会就不再给你提供资金了。所以,我必须想办法解决这件事,那时候我开始打扑克。

And then when I was playing poker, I discovered, OK, like I'm pretty good at it, and I really enjoy it. And it seemed like this really cool collision of what I was studying in academics and real life. And so at that point, I said, OK, I'm just going to delay graduate school, and this is what I did. Once I started playing poker, I didn't necessarily think there was something else I was going to do. Then I got asked to give this talk in 2002. It was great. And I still didn't think, and that was a matter of luck, because Eric Sidel actually got asked to give the talk, not me. And he hates public speaking. So he referred me. They said nothing to do with me. I wasn't seeking it out. This was not a decision I made.
然后,当我在玩扑克的时候,我发现自己挺擅长的,而且非常喜欢。这看起来就像是我在学术上研究的东西和现实生活的一次有趣碰撞。因此,在那时,我决定推迟读研究生。我开始玩扑克后,并没有特别打算做别的事情。然后在2002年,我被邀请去做一个演讲。这次机会特别好,但说实话,这完全是运气。因为最初是安排埃里克·塞德尔去演讲的,而不是我。他特别不喜欢公开演讲,所以他推荐了我。这次机会和我个人其实没有关系,也不是我主动争取来的。这并不是我做出的一个选择。

I get offered the talk. I say yes. I give it. And I'm still thinking, oh, that was fun, except that the people that I gave the talk to started referring me out, at which point I said, OK, now I've got a choice. Maybe I could do this as well, which I did. And there's been all sorts of, there's other points in my life. I almost became an options trader a little while after that. But then poker got on TV, and I thought that's kind of interesting. Maybe I'll try that. And I think that because I think probabilistically, I end up I'm just less likely to stick with the status quo. I'm more likely to say, OK, it's a new decision. Do I want to switch grocery lines?
我接受了一个演讲邀请。我答应了,然后去做了。演讲结束后,我还在想,哦,这挺有趣的。然而,我演讲的观众开始推荐我,这时我意识到,我可能可以选择把这做成一份工作,于是我这样做了。在我生活中还有许多其他的转折点。在那之后不久,我差点成为了一名期权交易员。但后来扑克比赛上了电视,我觉得那挺有趣的,于是决定尝试一下。我认为,因为我比较喜欢用概率思维,不太容易拘泥于现状,更倾向于去做新的决定,比如我要不要换条排队的超市结账线。

And so I think that's sort of how I end up looking like kind of here or here or here. It's just, OK, luck brings you to certain places. And I'm perfectly fine saying, here's the status quo. And here's this new thing that I can do. What can I do? And maybe I can do them both at the same time. I think I tend to be more open-minded maybe to that because that's the thing that poker really teaches you. It's like the best-laid plans, right? You still lose the hand. And so it forces you to think probabilistically. You have to be thinking this way or you will not succeed. And I think naturally it spreads out.
我想这就是为什么我会一会儿出现在这里,一会儿出现在那里的原因。运气把我带到了不同的地方,而我完全乐于接受现状,也乐于尝试一些新事物。我会问自己,还有什么是我可以做的呢?也许我可以同时做到。这可能是因为我比较开放地接受各种可能性,这正是打扑克教给我的东西。即使计划得再周密,你仍然可能输掉一手牌,所以这迫使你以概率思维来面对事情。如果不这样思考,你就很难成功。我认为这种思维方式会自然地扩展到其他领域。

Here is the actual funniest example that I can give you of how poker players just really think this way. So when I went to go on my first date with the absolute love of my life, my brother and brother-in-law who both knew the person I was going on the first date with immediately set a market. So they started bidding. We'd never been on a date. We had been friends for a long time, but we'd never been on a date. So they start bidding.
这是我能给你的一个真实而有趣的例子,说明扑克玩家就是这样思考的。当我第一次和我生命中的挚爱约会时,我的哥哥和姐夫马上开始打赌。他们都认识我第一次约会的那个人。虽然我们之前只是朋友,从未约会过,但他们立刻像在市场上一样开始下注。

And my brother-in-law ended up buying 23. So somebody said to me, aren't you offended that they started making a market? And I was like, no. I just can't believe my brother-in-law bought 23. We'd never been on a date. So I think that that shows you it's just this way of thinking about the world just sort of attaching numbers to it. And that's why I think that I sort of, I hope that answers your question.
我姐夫最后买了23个。所以有人问我,你不觉得他们开始做市场让你觉得被冒犯了吗?我说没有。我只是很难相信我姐夫买了23个。我们甚至从没约会过。我觉得这说明了这就是一种关于世界的思维方式,只是为它附加了一些数字。因此,我希望这就是对你问题的回答。

So our next question is online. You've talked about the feeling like an imposter or outsider at some poker tables. What are some of the ways the ideas in your book can help address the imposter syndrome sensation or counteract overconfidence? Yeah, that's actually really good. So I think the overconfidence piece is a little bit easier to deal with, because I think that if you have a really good decision group, they're going to check your overconfidence. So that's going to be part of the conversation all the time is, are you feeling overconfident?
所以我们的下一个问题是在线提问的。你之前谈到过在一些扑克牌桌上感觉自己像个冒牌者或局外人。你的书中的哪些理念可以帮助缓解冒牌者综合症或抵消过度自信的感觉?这个问题很好。我认为处理过度自信相对容易一些,因为如果你有一个很好的决策团队,他们会帮助你检查自己的过度自信。这将成为对话的一部分,常常问:你是否感到过度自信?

Imposter syndrome, it's a hard one. I mean, I feel it all the time. I feel it about this book. I feel it when I get up and give talks. It's like, why am I even opening my mouth? And I think that, again, it's like get other people to talk to you. Because what they can do is they can often see things more clearly. So I've actually had conversations where I said, oh, I just feel like this. I can't believe it. I'm such an imposter. I don't know what I'm talking about.
冒名顶替综合症真的很难应对。我经常有这种感觉。例如,对这本书有这样的感觉,还有我上台演讲时也有这种感觉。我常想,为什么我要开口说话呢?我认为让别人来和你交流很有帮助,他们往往能更清晰地看到问题。因此,我曾经和别人说过:“我就是有这种感觉,难以置信,我真像个冒牌货一样,我不知道自己在说什么。”

And people will say, people keep hiring you for speeches. They'll actually go through it. They refer you out. People are buying your book. And having other people to kind of look at you in a more objective way to get you out of your own head, I think I really feel like that's the way to do it. And then what happens is it's like, I highly recommend everybody read the power of habit. Because it really shows you how to change your habits. But not just the habits of going to the gym, like your habits of mind and the way you think.
人们会说,总有人请你去演讲。他们会认真听你的演讲,并推荐你给别人。人们也在买你的书。让其他人从更客观的角度来审视你,帮助你跳出自己的思维框架,我觉得这确实是一个有效的方法。结果是,我非常推荐大家去读《习惯的力量》这本书。因为它真的能教你如何改变习惯,不仅是健身的习惯,还有你的思维习惯和思考方式。

And what ends up is, remember I said, when I had that conversation with Eric Sidel, now when I went to the table, I was thinking about what Eric Sidel might say later. And so when you have a really good decision group that's checking your bias, whether it's overconfidence or underconfidence or imposter syndrome, the group gets in your head in a really good way so that then when I'm sort of on my own and I'm like, trust me, when I leave this room and I'm in the car, I'm going to think about what a bad talk I gave.
最后,我发现的是,我之前提到过,当我和埃里克·塞德尔谈话时,现在坐到桌边,我会考虑埃里克·塞德尔可能会怎么说。所以,当你有一个能够检查你偏见的优秀决策小组时,不论是自信过度、缺乏自信还是冒牌者综合征,这个小组会以一种正面的方式影响你的思考。这样的话,即使当我独自一人时,比如说,离开这个房间坐上车后,我仍然会反思自己发表了多么糟糕的演讲。

So maybe I did. I don't know. I guess. I was just so now I'm in my head. OK, so anyway. When I do that, hopefully I have a group of people that I can offload that too. And they can offload things like that to me. And hopefully they're talking to me. I mean, not physically, but I'm sort of running that conversation. Because that's really what happened at the poker table was, if I was processing the world in a way that was irrational, I would run the conversation with Eric or my brother or John Henigan or whoever might be later where they were telling me, oh, come on.
所以也许我做过。我不知道。可能是吧。我只是有点困惑。好吧,不管怎样。希望当我这样做时,我有一群可以倾诉的人,他们也能把类似的事情倾诉给我。希望他们在和我交流,我是说不是面对面,而是在某种意义上,我主导了那场对话。因为在扑克桌上,确实是这样,如果我用一种不理智的方式来理解世界,我就会和Eric、我兄弟或者John Henigan,或其他人进行对话,他们就会对我说:"哎,别这样。"

And that would help me when I was kind of on my own. So I think it's about what are the rewards you're getting and how are people around you helping to sort of shape those habits of mind. And I think that's really the best way. Because I think it's just the thing is, I think it's so hard to do on your own. I just think we all really need help with this.
这会在我独自面对时给予我帮助。所以,我认为关键在于你获得了什么奖励,以及周围的人如何帮助你形成这些心态习惯。我认为这真的是最好的方法。因为我觉得,单凭自己做到这点实在太难了。我们都真的需要在这方面的帮助。

And I think another mistake we make is we think, well, if I know about it, if I know about Imposter Syndrome or I know about overconfidence and I'm really smart, problem solved. I think the book that you mentioned, people who have the highest IQ scores are the ones you're most susceptible to. Yeah, so being, actually being high IQ correlates positively with motivated reasoning. So it, right. And you can think why that is, right? It's like, how do you slice and dice the info?
我认为我们犯的另一个错误是,我们以为,只要我知道某件事,比如冒名顶替综合症(Imposter Syndrome)或过度自信,而且我又很聪明,问题就解决了。实际上,你提到的书中指出,那些智商最高的人正是最容易受到这些问题影响的人。是的,高智商实际上与动机推理(motivated reasoning)呈正相关。你可以想想这是为什么,对吧?就像是你如何分析和解读信息。

Like, if you're cognitively agile, you're going to be able to slice and dice a story that sounds a lot more convincing to yourself and to others about why everything you believe is true and why every prediction you ever have is 100%. So yeah, so I'm smart and I know about this now is not necessarily a solution. And like I say, I'm telling you, I'm going to walk away from this and think about what a bad job I did. I don't want you guys to think that you practice these things and somehow it's ever solved. It's not. It's just, do I catch myself doing it more often? Do I do it less? And just doing it less and catching it more often is huge. So instead of like braiding yourself for all the times that you screw up, it's like you get to celebrate that I did it one fewer times. It's such a more self-compassionate way to live. And I'm really, I'm trying to get there.
如果你有较强的认知灵活性,你就能够对一个故事进行分析,从而让自己和他人更容易相信你所坚持的一切都是正确的,并且你做出的每个预测都是百分之百准确的。所以说,认为自己聪明且了解事情的真相不一定是解决方案。就像我说的,我告诉你,我可能会自己反思,然后觉得我做得不够好。我希望你们不要以为,只要练习这些事情,它们就会彻底解决,其实并不会。更重要的是,我是否更频繁地意识到自己在犯这些错误?我是否减少了这样的错误?哪怕只是减少了一些错误并更频繁地察觉到它们,都是很重要的成就。因此,与其指责自己犯错的次数太多,不如庆祝自己少犯了一次错误。以更具自我关怀的方式生活是非常重要的,我正在努力做到这一点。

But yeah, so I think you had a question, yeah. Oh, sorry, we're supposed to end. I'm sorry. I didn't want to. No, we're good. Keep going. We're OK. Yeah. OK. So for a question, what's your strategy for rock paper scissors? Oh. Sure. Sure. Short answer is throw scissors. So just kind of understand. So most people throw rock first. And then most people kind of know you throw rock. So what happens is, well, it depends. If you're against somebody who is a total newbie, so you know they're going to throw rock, then you should just throw paper. But if you're against somebody who you think is a little bit smarter than that, they're going to throw paper on you. So you do a pretty good job throwing scissors. Thank you. And if they're really good, they throw scissors in Utah, so it's not a big deal.
好的,就是说,我想你有个问题,对吧。哦,抱歉,我们本来应该结束了。不好意思,我不想打断。没关系,继续吧,我们还行。好,回到问题上,关于石头剪刀布,你有什么策略?哦,可以说一下。简单的答案是出剪刀。这样的话,你就理解了。大多数人第一次会出石头,然后多数人知道你会出石头。情况就是这样,如果你的对手是个初学者,你知道他们会出石头,那你就出布。但是如果你认为对方聪明一点,他们可能会出布,那么你出剪刀就是一个不错的选择。谢谢。如果他们真的很厉害,他们会出剪刀,但在犹他州这不是个大问题。

One of the things that you said at the beginning of the talk, like really stuck with me about like talking about your opinions in terms of bets and challenging that. How do you do that when something isn't quite as quantifiable as like the number of representatives in the house in November? Sure. So everything can be quantified. The chances that you, because everything is probabilistic, like the chances that you meet the love of your life tomorrow, or that the person that you stay with, you'll still be with in 10 years, or whether you're going to like the dish that you order at a restaurant, or literally everything is quantifiable.
在谈话刚开始时你提到的一点让我印象深刻,就是用打赌的方式来表达自己的观点并进行挑战。当事情不像11月众议院代表人数那样容易量化时,该怎么做呢?当然,万事万物都是可以量化的,因为一切都是基于概率的。例如,明天你遇到生命挚爱的概率,未来十年你会不会跟现在在一起的人继续在一起的概率,或者你在餐厅点的菜你会不会喜欢,甚至所有事情其实都是可以量化的。

Now, do we have enough data to get to flipping heads or tails where we know we know 50% of the time that you're going to flip heads? No. Is there some objective probability for anything short? Do we have access to it? Absolutely not. But we can sort of come up with a range. Now, so what people will say to me is often, well, it's not really quantifiable. Well, of course it is. There's more unknown information. It's harder to get to. We don't have as much data. So what I tell them is, look, let's say that I were to ask you some question about, well, what do you think the chances are that this belief that you have is true? And the best you could do is somewhere between 20 and 80%.
现在,我们是否有足够的数据来确定掷硬币正反面的结果,从而知道有50%的可能性是正面?没有。那么,是否存在某种客观概率来描述这种情况呢?我们能否接触到这个概率?绝对不能。但我们可以大概估算一个范围。常有人对我说,这并不是真正可以量化的。但其实当然可以量化,只是信息有很多未知的部分,而且更难获取数据。因此,我会告诉他们,比如说我问你一个问题,你认为你所持有的某个观点有多大可能是正确的?你可能只能给出一个大约20%到80%之间的概率。

That's a really wide market. But you know what? It's not as wide as 0 to 100. At least you're trying. That's the thing. So even if you say, I don't know, I can narrow it down to between 20 and 80%. That's not a failure. That's a success. Because you're trying. And then what that does is because you say, well, OK, it's 20 and 80%. Man, I'd really like to try to refine that. You'll now start to go ask people. Like you're going to go start asking for information. Whereas if you just sort of leave it as like whatever, you don't actually ever try to get better at it.
那是一个非常广泛的市场。但你知道吗?它还不如从0到100那么宽。不过,你至少在努力。这才是关键。所以,即使你说不知道,我也能把范围缩小到20%到80%之间,而这并不是失败,而是一种成功。因为你在尝试。这样做的结果是,你会想,“好吧,是20%到80%。哇,我真的很想进一步细化”。于是,你就会开始去问别人,去获取信息。相比之下,如果你只是随便放那儿,你就不会真正尝试去提升自己。

So now maybe you go and you start researching. And you know what? I make a joke. And literally every single talk that I give, I say what this does for you is it makes you take out and look at Google. You guys will be very happy. But literally, it's a joke in every talk that I give. It makes you want to Google things. So but it makes you want to Google things. So now you start googling. And maybe you say, OK, now I'm narrowed down. That's between 72% and, right? So like that's what happens. You know, now it's 72, 28. So and now you're a little bit narrower than 80, 20. And that's all we're trying to do.
所以现在,也许你开始去做一些研究。你知道吗?我总是开个玩笑。在我每一次演讲中,我都会说,这样做的好处是让你去搜索和查看谷歌。每次我都会开这个玩笑。在我的每场演讲中都会这样提到,它让你想去查谷歌。所以,现在你开始用谷歌搜索。也许你会说,好吧,现在我已经缩小到了72%之间,对吧?所以就是这样发生的,现在是72对28。所以你现在比80对20更接近了,而这正是我们所努力的目标。

But if we don't think about things probabilistically, if we don't recognize that what's going to happen in the future is probabilistic, that we can't guarantee it. We are not playing chess. If I play better than you, it does not mean I win. Not in life, only in chess, right? That if we don't do that, then we're going to be really surprised when a bad outcome happens. We're going to overreact to it. We're going to start changing strategy when we shouldn't. We're going to reinforce strategies that we shouldn't. We're going to always be reacting instead of planning ahead, instead of being proactive. Because we're not understanding that, well, other things would happen than the thing that we think. You know?
但是如果我们不以概率的方式思考问题,不承认未来结果是概率性的,我们无法保证它,我们就像不是在下棋。如果我下得比你好,并不意味着我一定会赢。生活中不是这样,只有在下棋时才是这样,对吗?如果我们不这么做,那么当不好的结果发生时,我们会感到非常惊讶,会过度反应,会在不该改变策略的时候改变策略,会强化我们不应该强化的策略。我们总是在反应,而不是提前计划,不是主动出击。因为我们没有理解,实际上会发生的事情可能和我们认为的不同。知道吗?

So I think just try. Like because literally everything's quantifiable. Where were you at on Black Friday in 2011? And what are your thoughts on regulating online poker? Oh, OK. That's an interesting question. So where was I actually, I remember this. I was in my bedroom, and I got a call. You should open up the internet, and you should look. So Black Friday is the DOJ came in down and shut down all of online poker. It was a very bad day for poker. Everybody was really mad. It was really hard. Like in a lot of ways, the poker community hasn't recovered from it.
我觉得应该尝试一下,因为几乎所有事情都是可以量化的。2011年黑色星期五那天你在哪里?你对监管网络扑克有什么看法?哦,这个问题很有趣。实际上我记得那天,我在卧室里,然后接了个电话。有人告诉我应该上网看看。原来,黑色星期五是美国司法部取缔并关闭了所有网络扑克的日子。那一天对扑克来说是个糟糕的日子,大家都非常生气。很多方面来说,扑克界至今都没有从中恢复过来。

So it was kind of interesting. Because I played in the 90s when in poker money was not raining down from the sky. You know, there was a very small group of people who were playing, and they need sometimes have someone who came in and would play. And you know, it was really like, you were, it was called grinding. And then online poker happened with the closing of poker on TV, and the poker economy just boomed. I mean, I mean, boomed. It was really like just money raining down from the sky. And then the DOJ on Black Friday, now it all contracts.
这段话翻译成中文并尽量易读如下: 所以这件事挺有意思的。我在90年代打扑克的时候,钱并不像现在这样从天上掉下来。那时玩扑克的人很少,有时候他们还需要有人来参与。那时候真的就像在“磨”,努力挣每一分钱。后来,随着电视上的扑克节目结束,在线扑克的兴起,扑克经济迅速繁荣。可以说,钱真的是从天上掉下来一样。然而在“黑色星期五”时,美国司法部的行动让这一切都迅速收缩。

And that was really hard. I think it was less hard for the people who had been playing in the 90s, because I think we sort of saw the luck in what had happened during the 2000s a little bit more. But it's like whenever anything goes through like a big recession, and I would call it a depression, it's painful. Like it's super, super, super, super painful. You know, in terms of whether there should be regulation, somewhat small government, but I'm also, you know, I like people to have protections. So I did testify in front of Congress twice about regulation, and I tend to be more on the sort of free, freer side of that discussion, you know, that you should let adults choose what they want to do, and then obviously make sure that there isn't fraud occurring, right?
这真的很艰难。我认为对于那些在90年代就已经从业的人来说,可能没有那么困难,因为我们在一定程度上看到了2000年代所发生事情中的运气成分。但这就像任何经历过大衰退,甚至我会说是大萧条的事情一样,很痛苦,非常非常痛苦。至于是否应该进行监管,我倾向于小政府,但同时我也希望人们得到保护。所以我曾两次在国会作证谈论监管的问题,我的立场偏向自由一些,我认为成年人应该有权选择自己想做的事情,同时要确保没有诈骗行为发生,对吧?

So you should always have protections against fraud. Excellent. What resonated with me, you, questioning a status quo, yeah? And I think it's great because it gives you a lot of opportunity to see your options in life all the time, and so just going what you have. But also I have the feeling it's a risky business, you know? You can like invest a lot of time in always questioning your status quo, and instead of focusing on what you're doing and like trusting your decisions you made in the past.
所以你应该始终有防范欺诈的措施。这一点很好。让我感触很深的是,你在质疑现状,对吧?我认为这很棒,因为这样你总是有机会看到生活中的各种选择,而不仅仅是接受现有的一切。但是,我也觉得这是一件有风险的事。你可能会花很多时间去不断质疑自己的现状,而不是专注于当下正在做的事情,以及信任你过去做出的决定。

And like how do you find the balance, you know? And you seem to have been going good places with it. So do you set yourself, you know, mind stores, oh, I'm questioning where I'm at in life next month from now, or do you like two minutes later when you're on the wrong line? I mean, you know, how much time do you invest in that? It's just a bet too. I think there's a couple things. I think certainly from a business standpoint, we always go, you know, there's always strategic planning sessions, and I think that when we do that, it's always around like what's the new decision, and what doesn't get included in there is, well, what about sticking with what we're doing?
你知道,如何找到平衡点呢?你似乎在这方面做得不错。那么,你会给自己设定目标,比如说,我下个月会对自己目前的生活位置产生疑问,还是在走错路的时候仅仅两分钟之后就开始反思?我想知道,你会花多少时间在这上面?这其实也是一种赌注。我觉得有几件事情是一定的。首先,从商业角度来看,我们总是在进行战略规划,而在这过程中,我们总是在考虑新的决策是什么。不过,在此过程中我们常常没有考虑的是,继续坚持我们目前在做的事情怎么样。

So I think that we tend to get involved in strategic planning decisions generally when there's something wrong, and you should actually set a calendar for, all right, let's start thinking about what are our goals, regardless of whether we think something is wrong, because maybe there's a better way to do it. And actually working backwards is, so something called backcasting in premortems is the best way to do that. So imagine what your goal is. Think about that you've actually reached it. This is a backcast. And then think about how you got to the, how you actually did it.
所以,我认为,我们通常是在出现问题时才参与战略规划决策,但你其实应该设定一个时间表,定期思考我们的目标是什么,而不管我们觉得是否有问题,因为或许存在更好的方法。而实际上,倒推思维,即在预想失败分析中被称为“逆推思维”,是达成目标的最佳方式。你可以想象一下自己的目标,并假设你已经达成了这个目标。这就是逆推。然后,思考一下你是如何实现这一目标的。

So it's three years from now, and we accomplished X. How did we do that? But then also a premortem is, it's three years from now, and we failed, you know, how did that happen? And I think that allows you to see the landscape a little bit better. What I would say in terms of, you know, are you doing it too much or are you doing it too little? There's two things that I want to say about that. One is that I certainly don't think that every decision that you're ever supposed to be made is supposed to be done as a deliberative process. If you did that, I wouldn't be able to get from here to there.
所以,现在是三年后,我们成功实现了X。我们是如何做到的呢?但同时,我们也可以进行一种“预演失败”——想象三年后我们失败了,这是怎么发生的?我觉得这样能让你更好地了解面临的情况。我想说两点关于你是否做得过多或过少的看法。首先,我绝对不认为每一个决策都必须经过深思熟虑的过程。如果每一个决定都这样处理,我根本无法高效地前进。

Right? So a lot of stuff that's happening is certainly more gut and it's more in the moment. And I think that that's totally fine, as long as you hold your intuition accountable to a deliberative process at some point. So when somebody says to you, well, why did you do what you did? Your answer should never be because my gut told me to. And then when they say, okay, that's great, but why? It shouldn't be because I told you because my gut told me to. If you can't teach it to another person, there's a problem.
好的,那么现在发生的很多事情确实更多是依靠直觉和当下的反应。我认为这是完全可以接受的,只要你在某个时候能通过深思熟虑的过程来验证你的直觉。当有人问你为什么这么做时,你的回答不应该只是“因为我的直觉告诉我这么做”。然后当他们继续问“那为什么呢?”你的回答也不应该再是“因为我刚才说了,我的直觉告诉我。”如果你无法把这个过程教会给他人,那就说明存在问题。

So that being said, I think intuition can be very good as long as you're checking it occasionally. But in terms of whether you should have a schedule, I think once you start thinking about the world more probabilistically, you're naturally examining those things. And it's happening relatively automatically and you do end up sticking with the status quo a lot. It's just that you're sort of seeing these opportunities over on the side more.
综上所述,我认为直觉是不错的,只要你偶尔检查一下自己的直觉。但关于是否应该有一个固定计划,我觉得一旦你开始以概率的方式思考问题时,你自然会去审视这些事情。这种审视过程基本上是自动进行的,而你通常会倾向于继续保持现状。只是你会开始更多地注意到旁边的一些机会。

Now what's interesting is that when you do that, you don't just overreact and like, just because things aren't going well right now, you're actually less likely, I think, to change course. Because I think that a lot of our changing course is a reaction to the way that the status quo is now. It's a reaction to having a bad outcome. And a lot of not changing courses that we just happen to have good outcomes.
有趣的是,当你这样做时,你不会因为事情目前进展不顺利而过度反应。我认为你实际上更不容易改变方向。因为我觉得,我们很多时候之所以改变方向,是对当前状况的一种反应,是对不好结果的一种反应。而当我们不改变方向时,往往是因为我们碰巧有了不错的结果。

So I think that what happens is that when you start thinking in this way more probabilistically, even if you have good outcomes, you're always sort of working with your decision group of like, well, is there a better way? That doesn't necessarily mean you do it. It just means it's in your head. So that you're more likely to sort of see the opportunity when it comes your way. But what's more important is you're less likely to overreact to a bad outcome happening where you actually change course too much.
所以我认为,当你开始以这种更为概率性的方法来思考时,即使你得到了好的结果,你也总是在和你的决策团队一起思考:有没有更好的办法?这并不一定意味着你会立刻去改变,只是这些想法在你的脑海中。所以,当机会来临时,你更容易捕捉到。但更重要的是,当遇到不好的结果时,你不太容易过度反应或者过多地改变方向。

And I would actually say that interestingly enough that that second problem is what the bigger problem is. It's not so much that if you think this way, you're going to be going left, right, left, right, right. It's that you're not going to be just going left because bad things are happening all the time. You're going to be setting back into a more deliberative place on those things. It's actually going to either cause you to make sort of incremental changes that are going to be really good.
我认为有趣的是,实际上第二个问题才是真正的大问题。问题不在于如果你这样思考,你会左摇右摆,而是因为坏事总是不断发生,你不会仅仅只是向左走。相反,你会在这些事情上采取更深思熟虑的态度。这实际上会导致你做出一些渐进的改变,这些改变可能真的非常有益。

It's going to cause you to be able to anticipate or think about paradigm shifts for yourself a little bit better. And I think it's going to actually give you a smoother ride, much more so than a less smooth ride. And I don't know. See now, now you might go and say, no, she should actually get into that limo. Does that answer your question?
这将使你能够更好地预测或思考你自身的思维模式转变。我认为这会让你的过渡更顺利,而不是不那么顺利。我不知道,或许你会说,不,她确实应该坐那辆豪华轿车。这样解释你的问题吗?

I mean, was it not to hear you on the other side? Because you were pushing a lot of them. So I'd like to hear that too. Yeah, no, I'm all forced out of quo. Yeah. You see the success and you want to always question your decision to make yesterday.
我的意思是,难道你不是想听听对方的意见吗?因为你在推动很多事情。所以我也想听听你的看法。是的,我已经打破常规了。你看到成功后,总是想质疑自己昨天做出的决定。

Well, yeah, so I think it's like, again, it has to do, right, it has to do with separating those those that don't pack yourself. I sort of say, don't get so down on yourself for your bad outcomes and don't pack yourself on the back so hard for your good ones. So here's a really great way, actually, to implement within your own life. It's like, once a week, have your team get together, think of each person presents the best success that they had that week.
这段文字的意思是,不要过于责备自己,也不要过于强调自己的好成绩。作者建议了一种方法,可以在生活中实施:每周让团队聚在一起,每个人分享自己这一周取得的最大成功。这有助于反思和交流,而不是过分看重成或败。

And everybody talks about they have to offer up the five things that they did wrong along the way to that success. So it's not about changing course. It's more about refining, about always trying to do a little bit better. And I think that when you have that goal in mind, I think you do a lot better. Because otherwise, what makes us make these big left turns? I mean, I've got a couple in my life.
大家都在谈论,他们必须列出自己在成功路上犯过的五个错误。所以,这并不是要改变方向,而是要不断完善,不断尝试做得更好。我认为,当你心中有这样的目标时,你会做得更好。因为否则,是什么让我们突然大幅转变方向呢?至少我的人生中有过几次这样的经历。

But what makes us make these big left turns, I think, is when we're reacting to the way that things are, we're just reacting. So when you're trying to separate those two things out and always be trying to focus on process, now what happens is you're less likely to be making these like 90 degree changes, I think.
但我认为,促使我们做出这些重大转变的原因,是因为我们对现状只是简单地做出反应。因此,当你试图将这两者区分开来,并始终关注过程时,你就不太可能做出这样的急剧改变。

I have an online question. What is your approach to the mental game of poker when running bad, when our emotions can potentially influence our thought process? Can you compare that to the advice offered by Jared Tender and his popular mental game of poker books? OK, so I haven't read those books. So I can't make the comparison. But I can answer the first part of the question.
我有个线上的问题。当我们运气不佳时,你如何处理扑克中的心理游戏,尤其是当我们的情绪可能影响我们的思维过程时?你能否将你的方法与Jared Tender及其受欢迎的扑克心理游戏书籍中提供的建议进行比较?好吧,我没有读过那些书,所以无法进行比较。但是我可以回答问题的第一部分。

OK, so there's something in poker called tilt. Tilt is when our emotions get lit up, that shuts our frontal cortex down. And we start making really bad decisions. So I say about poker has this really interesting quality of your exchanging chips every single hand. And so it's letting you see that there's risk in every single decision. So that's the good thing. The bad thing is it's allowing you to get caught in the path.
好的,在扑克游戏中有一种情况叫做"倾斜"。倾斜是指当我们的情绪被点燃时,我们的大脑前额皮质关闭,这会导致我们开始做出非常糟糕的决策。我认为扑克有个非常有趣的特点,就是每一手牌你都在交换筹码。这让你意识到每一个决策都有风险。这是扑克的优点。但缺点是,它也可能让你陷入某种惯性思维。

So if you think about it, I mean, obviously, what we'd really like is to think of ourselves as like a Berkshire Hathaway stock. We want a general upward trend to our happiness stock over our lifetime. And if you look at Berkshire Hathaway from the moment of its inception, it has that general upward trend. And it looks like a pretty nice little ride. But if you look at it on a given day, it might have a sharp downturn.
所以,如果你仔细想想,我的意思是,显然我们都希望自己的人生就像伯克希尔·哈撒韦的股票。我们希望自己的"幸福股"在一生中整体呈上升趋势。从伯克希尔·哈撒韦创立之初起,它的走势就是总体向上的,似乎是一段相当不错的旅程。但如果你看某个特定的一天,可能会出现急剧下跌。

And in poker, because you've got this exchange happening all the time, you end up doing what's called ticker watching. And you can really see those downswinks. And you can really steal those upswinks. And so you start getting yanked around in this kind of like path dependent, you're very path dependent in terms of where your emotions are. And this is generally a problem in life, right?
在扑克游戏中,由于你不断地进行交换,你最终会做类似于“盯着股票行情”的事情。你能清晰地察觉那些低谷,也能够真正把握那些高峰起势。因此,你开始因为这些变化而被牵动情绪,这种情况让你的情绪变得非常依赖于当前的状态。这种现象在生活中通常也是一个问题,对吧?

So as an example, like let's say that you're on the side of the road, and you have a flat tire, and it's raining, and it's really cold, and you don't have a jack. And you call triple A, and you know they take forever. And so you're just cursing your life, right? Like you're just thinking, like, I have the unhappiest life. I can't even imagine it. Why do these things always happen to me? Do you think it matters if you got a promotion three days before? Are you like, now hold on a second. Let me actually take the average of my happiness over the last three days. No. It's like literally what happened three days ago doesn't matter. You're only, you're really deep down in that moment.
举个例子,比如说你在路边遇到了爆胎,天还下着雨,而且非常冷,你也没有千斤顶。你打电话叫了拖车公司,但是他们总是要很久才到。所以你就开始抱怨自己的生活,觉得自己的人生真不幸,为什么这些倒霉事总是发生在自己身上?在这种情况下,三天前你刚刚升职的事情还重要吗?你会停下来想:让我算一算过去三天的幸福平均值吗?不会的。几天前发生的事情在这种时候已经不重要了,当下的感受才是最真实的。

So this actually gives us a clue to how we deal with this, and it's part of how poker players deal with it. So if I were to say to you, OK, let's say that you had that flat tire a year ago, do you think that that would have affected your happiness one bit over the course of the last year, that one incident? I actually, to tell you the truth, I actually think it would. I think it would uptick. I think it would cause enough tick in your happiness, because it's a really good cocktail party story.
所以,这实际上给了我们一个线索,告诉我们该如何处理这种情况,而这也是扑克玩家处理它的一部分。如果我要问你,好吧,假设你在一年前遇到了爆胎,你认为这件事在过去一年中是否会对你的幸福感产生一点影响?实际上,说实话,我真的认为会。我认为它会对你的幸福产生一点提升,因为这可以成为一个非常好的宴会谈资。

Interesting articles that I've seen, a lot of kind of current events, and thinking about it, in terms of resulting, or hindsight bias, or self-serving bias, or motivated reasoning, or whatever it might be, to really kind of look at how what are things that are happening out in the world that can help us to try to figure out how to be better decision makers. So like this week, for example, I talked a little bit about the NFL draft and decision making around the NFL draft. I also talked about a really interesting study that was done on inducing intellectual humility in high school students and how that actually increases their ability to learn, to really get that into that sort of mode of I'm not sure.
我看了一些有趣的文章,其中很多涉及到时事热点。我思考这些事件时,会从结果论、后见之明、自利偏差或动机性推理等角度去看,想通过这些世界上的事件,帮助我们成为更好的决策者。例如,本周我谈到了NFL选秀及其决策过程。我还分享了一项非常有趣的研究,该研究探讨了如何在高中生中引发智识谦逊,并如何通过这种方式提高他们的学习能力,让他们进入一种“我不确定”的思维模式。

So that was in there I talked about something from Near I All on the Peak End Rule, and how you can hack that in order to make your memories better, and your experiences better, at least your memory of your experiences better. So that, and then I'll also talk about things in that, not in this particular one, but like last week, I think I talk about current events, things that are happening on politics, and that kind of thing. So hopefully people will subscribe to the newsletter. You can actually find archives of the newsletter on antiduke.com, so you don't have to buy it until you actually test the product so you can go see what I've done.
所以,在那篇文章里,我讨论了Near的某个内容,尤其是关于“峰终定律”(Peak-End Rule),以及如何利用它来改善你的记忆和体验,至少是改善你对回忆的体验。除此之外,我还会谈到其他主题,这篇文章没有涉及,但比如上周我谈到了当前的时事和政治之类的一些事情。希望大家能够订阅这个通讯。你可以在antiduke.com上找到以前的通讯内容,所以在购买之前,你可以先去看看我之前的作品。

And when are you starting your podcast? I think you do a great job doing that. Well, I appreciate that. So I'm not, so I've had that suggestion. I'm thinking about it. I'm right now because of the launch of the book, I'm doing a lot of podcasts. And so I'm kind of enjoying that at the moment. I've done some really, really fun ones. And actually, it's exposed me to a bunch of podcasts that I didn't know about.
你什么时候开始做播客的?我觉得你会做得很好。哇,谢谢你的夸奖。其实我还没开始,不过有人建议过我这样做。我现在考虑中。因为最近刚刚出了本书,我正在参加很多播客,所以我目前在享受这种体验。我参与了一些非常有趣的播客节目,实际上,这让我接触到了许多以前不知道的播客。

So that's been actually super fun, is that I'm getting to find out about some podcasts that I wasn't personally aware of. I love podcasts, because I think, I mean, some of them are obviously like, you know, your 15-minute deals, but the ones that are more like this, where you get to go, you get to do a deep dive, and then what I find that's so amazing about them is that I rarely come from a way from a podcast where I haven't learned something. I mean, I'm always not just one thing either, like, so much, where you get to sit and talk to somebody who's obviously really smart and really engaged, and see what their perspective on your product is.
所以,这实际上非常有趣,我正在发现一些我以前不知道的播客。我喜欢播客,因为我觉得,有些播客可能是很短的那种,只有15分钟,但我更喜欢这种深入探讨的类型。我觉得它们很厉害的地方在于,我很少在听过一个播客后没有学到任何东西。不仅仅是一点点,而是很多东西。你可以和那些显然非常聪明且非常投入的人交流,看他们对你产品的看法,这真的很有趣。

It's so cool. And it's just like such gratitude for how it changed, like you come in and you're like, well, this is my work product. And then you come away going, oh my gosh, what a cool, like, I didn't think of that. And I was so challenged, and that makes me think about it in a different way, and oh, this relates to this in a way that I hadn't thought before. So I'm just enjoying that process right now, and then we'll see what, I don't know, we'll see what the future holds in terms of anything else.
这真的很酷。我非常感激它带来的改变。起初我以为这只是我的工作成果,但后来我发现,哇,太棒了,我从没想到这一点。这给了我很大的挑战,让我从不同的角度去思考。而且,我还发现它和其他事物之间有我以前没注意到的联系。我现在正在享受这个过程,至于将来会有什么其他的变化,我们拭目以待吧。

Excellent. Well, if you haven't already grabbed her book, it's called Thinking and Betz, making smart decisions when you don't have all the facts. If we can give her a please, a huge round of applause. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
很好。如果你还没有买她的书,可以去看看,书名是《思考与选择:在信息不足时做出明智决策》。请大家给她一阵热烈的掌声。谢谢,谢谢,谢谢。



function setTranscriptHeight() { const transcriptDiv = document.querySelector('.transcript'); const rect = transcriptDiv.getBoundingClientRect(); const tranHeight = window.innerHeight - rect.top - 10; transcriptDiv.style.height = tranHeight + 'px'; if (false) { console.log('window.innerHeight', window.innerHeight); console.log('rect.top', rect.top); console.log('tranHeight', tranHeight); console.log('.transcript', document.querySelector('.transcript').getBoundingClientRect()) //console.log('.video', document.querySelector('.video').getBoundingClientRect()) console.log('.container', document.querySelector('.container').getBoundingClientRect()) } if (isMobileDevice()) { const videoDiv = document.querySelector('.video'); const videoRect = videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect(); videoDiv.style.position = 'fixed'; transcriptDiv.style.paddingTop = videoRect.bottom+'px'; } const videoDiv = document.querySelector('.video'); videoDiv.style.height = parseInt(videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect().width*390/640)+'px'; console.log('videoDiv', videoDiv.getBoundingClientRect()); console.log('videoDiv.style.height', videoDiv.style.height); } window.onload = function() { setTranscriptHeight(); }; if (!isMobileDevice()){ window.addEventListener('resize', setTranscriptHeight); }