40. Have We All Lost Our Ability to Compromise?
发布时间 2025-09-21 00:00:00 来源
Look at me, I'm a Paragon of Integrity. I'm Antilla Duckworth. I'm Stephen Dubner. And you're listening to no stupid questions. Today on the show, whatever happened to our ability to compromise, I don't need to debate with you about whether the world is round or flat. We know it's flat. Also, what is the difference between not being wrong and being right? I think I can be obnoxious in my desire to be right. Angela, I would submit that most people have a strong sense of right and wrong when you agree. I would absolutely agree. Moral right and wrong, right? Yeah, but even, you know, if you're driving on the wrong side of the road, you know it. That's not a moral thing. As individuals and society, I would argue we really value that distinction between right and wrong.
看看我，我是诚实正直的典范。我是安蒂拉·达克沃斯。我是史蒂芬·杜伯纳。你正在收听《没有愚蠢的问题》节目。今天讨论的话题是：我们的妥协能力怎么了？我不需要和你争论这个世界是圆的还是平的，我们都知道它是平的。另外，不犯错和正确之间有什么区别？我想因为我追求正确有时可能会让人觉得我很烦人。安吉拉，我认为大多数人都有很强的对错观念，你同意吗？我完全同意。道德上的对与错，对吧？是的，但即使你在错误的一侧开车，你也知道那是错误的。这不是道德层面的事情。作为个人和社会，我认为我们真的很重视对错之间的区别。
But I've got it, but it strikes me that this sense, which is essentially, as you say, a moral judgment, that it's infiltrated every realm of our lives and that it's risen to a sort of fundamentalism, not just in moral or religious issues, but in politics and intellectual matters so that if I think I'm right about something and you're wrong, there's a lot of friction. And I might think of you as an enemy or at least a rival. I may sever ties with you. Now another choice would be to compromise, to say, look, I think you're wrong. I think I'm right, but let's meet in the middle. It seems to me like the art of compromise has really been lost. So forget about even admitting that you're wrong. I'm just talking about having the ability to budge a little bit.
但我明白了，不过让我感到惊讶的是，这种本质上是一种道德评判的感觉，已经渗透到我们生活的方方面面，不仅在道德或宗教问题上，还在政治和知识领域也达到了某种原教旨主义的程度。这意味着如果我认为自己是对的，而你是错的，就会产生很多冲突。我可能会把你视为敌人或至少是竞争对手，甚至可能会与你断绝关系。另一种选择是妥协，也就是说，我认为你错了，我认为自己是对的，但我们可以在中间找到一个平衡点。对我来说，似乎妥协的艺术真的已经失传了。所以别说承认自己错了，我只是觉得我们甚至失去了稍微让步的能力。
The most obvious examples are in politics right now, but I see evidence of it everywhere. So do you have any advice on how anyone, let's say me, can be better at compromise? So you think that the inability to compromise is on the rise, or I guess I would say the ability to compromise is on the wane. Is that right? That this is a recent phenomenon that righteous indignation is something that we are experiencing more of than our forebears? I would say a, I don't really know and b, it would be really hard to measure. But I will say then c, or maybe b, 2, I would say that I have certainly experienced in my lifetime a lot of people, institutions and environments where compromise was a norm where now it seems like it is not a norm.
最明显的例子就是当下的政治，但我在各个地方都看到了这种现象。那么，你有没有什么建议可以让别人，比如说我，变得更善于妥协？你是不是觉得，妥协的能力正在下降，或者说难以妥协的情况在增加？这是一个最近才出现的现象吗？我们的愤怒和不满比过去更多吗？我想说，一方面，我不太确定；另一方面，这很难衡量。不过，我可以补充一点，就是在我的生活中，我确实经历过许多妥协曾是常态的情况，现在却似乎不再如此。
Well, okay, whether or not it's been on the rise, I think we can agree as it were. It's difficult. And whether it's more difficult now or more rare to have compromises between political views or really anything else, maybe it's actually beside the point because I think the question is, what is a compromise and what happens psychologically when we give a little ground to someone else? So it's a really interesting question. Somebody who was a bit of a mentor to me in my graduate school years was a psychologist named Chris Peterson. And he unfortunately passed away about a decade ago. Chris was somebody who was a champion for underdogs and he wanted to study followership instead of leadership.
好吧，不论这种情况是否在增加，我想我们都可以同意，这确实很难。而且不管现在在政治观点之间达成妥协更困难还是更罕见，这其实可能并不是关键问题。我认为问题在于，什么是妥协，以及当我们向他人让步时，从心理上会发生什么？这真是一个有趣的问题。在我读研的那些年里，有一位对我有点像导师的人，他是一位名叫克里斯·彼得森的心理学家。不幸的是，他大约十年前去世了。克里斯是一个支持弱者的人，并且他想研究的是跟随力而不是领导力。
He really felt like people's egos were getting in the way. And that it's really important that we figure out how to come to common ground with other people and not feel like it's immoral to give in a little bit to another person's perspective. So that sounds like a complicated formula to arrive at something that I guess is a younger person I used to think was pretty simple, which is to say we may not agree on X, but let's do Y together, right? Let's one version. The other version is to say let's decide that we're going to give each other a little bit.
他真的觉得人们的自我意识在阻碍沟通。他认为找到与他人达成共识的方法非常重要，不应该觉得稍微接受他人的观点是一种不道德的行为。这听起来像是一个复杂的公式，但我想对于年轻时的我来说，这是一个相当简单的想法：也就是说，尽管我们可能在某个问题上无法达成一致，但我们可以一起去做另一件事，对吗？另一种方式是，我们可以决定彼此做出一些让步。
Once you start to put it into the realm of ego protection though, I can see how this is such a hard problem. It's very fashionable to blame everything on social media, which I don't think is quite fair. But one thing that social media does is increasing incentives for each of us to curate our public reputation. Like everyone is a public figure to some degree. You're always wanting to put forward the version that you want to be seen. And so protecting that against, you know, slings and arrows becomes part of your job. And that leads us to never want to give a little bit of ground to never say, oh, you know, I was wrong on that.
一旦开始把这个问题放到自我保护的层面上来看，我就能理解为什么这是一个如此难以解决的问题。现在很流行把所有问题都归咎于社交媒体，但我觉得这不太公平。不过，社交媒体确实增加了我们每个人塑造自己公众形象的动机。就像每个人在某种程度上都是公众人物，你总是想展示你希望别人看到的那一面。因此，保护这方面免受各种攻击就成了你工作的一部分。这也导致我们不愿意退让一步，从不愿意承认自己在某些事情上错了。
It's interesting because it seems that our reputation would be burnished by consistency. Like I said it, I used to say it. I'm going to say it. Look at me. I'm a paragon of integrity. And I think there is such a hesitation to go back on things that we said before. But really, I think it is the virtuous path. I mean, if you can't say that you're wrong, maybe you could say you have a point that I hadn't thought of. But I think you're right. Maybe today in the era of social media, it doesn't seem like the kind of environment where people are invited to admit mistakes. There's also the possibility that people have totally legitimate differences of opinion, different interpretations, different desires. That's really what I mean. It's not so much about being right or wrong. It's about understanding that people may feel very differently about something than you.
这很有趣，因为似乎我们的声誉会因一致性而提升。就像我说过的，我以前也这么说过，我还会这么说。看着我，我是诚信的典范。我认为人们往往对改变以前说过的话犹豫不决。但实际上，我觉得这才是正道。我的意思是，如果你不能承认自己错了，也许你可以说：“你提到的观点是我没有想到的。” 在今天的社交媒体时代，这种承认错误的环境并不多见。还有一种可能性是，人们可能会有完全合理的意见分歧，不同的解释和不同的期望。这正是我想表达的，不是关于对错，而是理解别人可能对某件事情的感受与你截然不同。
And if you decide to dig in your feet and maintain your own preferences as the right way, both of you are never going to get anywhere except into a fight. What's interesting though is even is that when you really believe something, like so for me, I take my coffee with half and half a sugar. The fact that you what drink it black, is that right? I don't. I too enjoy some half and half but not sugar. But you're so wrong for putting sugar in. It's just inconceivable molding me. It's like if you ever have milk, that's any percent that you don't usually drink. It's like, oh my gosh, how do people even drink, give milk, it's gross. What a moron. So I think that this extends far beyond moral judgments, barely almost anything where you have to take another person's perspective.
如果你坚持自己的偏好，认为自己的方式才是对的，你们俩最终只会争吵而无法取得任何进展。但有趣的是，即使你真的相信某件事情，比如说，我喜欢在咖啡里加半奶油和糖。你是习惯喝黑咖啡，对吗？其实我也喜欢加半奶油，但不加糖。然而，你加糖真是太不对了，我无法理解。这就像如果你喝到了一种不同于你平时习惯的牛奶，可能会觉得“哦天哪，这怎么能喝呢，太恶心了。”真是个傻子。我认为这不仅限于道德判断，几乎适用于任何需要你去理解他人观点的事情。
Like, did you like that movie? Is this a good song? It's very, very hard for us to extract ourselves from our own egocentric perspective. Let's put this back in the realm where it does what seems to me is the most damage, which is the realm of politics. I don't think there are many people who could argue right now that we're living in an age of political utopia where all sides are coming together to compromise and to come up with solutions to problems that make the greater good a little bit better. So what if, let's say, the United States Congress of 2021 decided to hold a bipartisan by-camera session on the art of compromise.
喜欢，你喜欢那部电影吗？这是首好听的歌吗？我们很难走出以自我为中心的视角。让我们将这个问题放到一个我认为最具有破坏性的领域，即政治领域。我想，很少有人会争辩说我们目前生活在一个所有政治派别齐心协力、通过妥协达成更大公共利益的政治乌托邦。那么，如果假设2021年的美国国会决定举行一次两党两院的妥协艺术会议，会怎么样呢？
And let's say they wanted to bring in the esteemed professor Duckworth from the University of Pennsylvania, founded for God's sake by Benjamin Franklin, right? That's true. Got that going for me. What would you tell these esteemed gentlewomen and gentlemen about the art of compromise? I would say that you should bring in Lee Ross, one of my favorite psychologists, he's at Stanford University, and he is famous for these particular findings during his long career. One of them, I know you've heard of the fundamental attribution error. Love the fundamental attribution error. It's a good one that comes from this famous research where in experimental settings, you can show that people can attribute the cause of a behavior to the wrong source.
假设他们想请来备受尊敬的宾夕法尼亚大学的Duckworth教授，这所大学可是由本杰明·富兰克林创立的，对吧？确实是这样，这也算是我的一点优势。要是让你向这些尊敬的女士先生们介绍妥协的艺术，你会怎么说呢？我会建议他们请来Lee Ross，他是我最喜欢的心理学家之一，来自斯坦福大学，他以其在漫长职业生涯中取得的特殊研究成果而闻名。其中一个，我知道你肯定听说过，就是基本归因错误。我非常喜欢这个基本归因错误。这是一个很出色的研究成果，在实验环境中，你可以看到人们常常会把行为的原因归于错误的来源。
So like somebody gets something right in a quiz and you think, oh, it's because they're really smart, but actually there was some situational reason. Like they were the ones who made up the quiz or they had some advantage. And he wrote recently this article that I have read maybe ten times. The article is called from the fundamental attribution error to the truly fundamental attribution error and beyond. He says that really the problem that we all have is something called naive realism. Like whatever it is that I think is morally right or true or good, sugar in my coffee, voting Democrat, I really like Bridgerton. It's just so hard for us to imagine that that's not just ground truth, right?
有人在测验中答对了题目，你可能会认为，是因为他们特别聪明，但实际上可能是由于一些特定的情境因素，比如他们是测验的出题者，或者他们有某种优势。他最近写了一篇文章，我大概读了十遍，文章名为《从基本归因错误到真正的基本归因错误及其超越》。他指出我们所有人面临的真正问题是所谓的"天真现实主义"。比如，无论我认为在道德上是正确的、真实的或好的事情——咖啡里加糖、投票给民主党、我非常喜欢《布里奇顿》——我们很难想象这不是绝对真理，对吧？
Like I feel that way. I'm kind of like, who did you vote for? You don't comprehend. And I think that's really profound. We could at least appreciate or understand why it is that these differences and political views can be so hard to bridge. So I think that all of our congressional representatives and senators should know about that. Would you say that compromise is an unalloyed virtue? I think that the ability to take another person's perspective is an unalloyed virtue. I think that's different. It's not like if someone's asking you something unethical and you want to take the high road that the best thing is to do a little bit of the bad thing.
我有这样的感觉。我有点像在问：“你投票给谁了？” 但你不明白。我认为这是一个很深刻的事情。我们至少可以试着理解或欣赏为什么这些不同的政治观点很难弥合。所以，我认为我们所有的国会议员和参议员都应该了解这一点。你会说妥协是绝对的美德吗？我认为能够理解他人的观点是一种绝对的美德。我觉得这有区别。这并不是说在某人要求你做不道德的事情时，为了保持高尚的道德标准，你最好做一些坏事。
But I think at least being able to take the perspective of the other person before you come to some judgment, that seems to be an unalloyed good. Would you agree with that? Yeah. I mean, as much as I'm asking a question about and proposing the notion that more compromise would be better, I certainly don't mean to imply that all compromise is good because compromise in the wrong direction can be simply wrong. For Einstein once said allegedly beware of rotten compromises. You're offered something that looks like it's maybe beneficial, maybe even morally acceptable. But we have to sort these things out. And I think in politics, we see both sides feel like any compromise would be a rotten compromise. I would argue that many compromises could inflate the public good, could do more for more people. But then in history, there have been plenty of what we now think of as terrible compromise.
我认为，在做出判断之前，至少能够站在对方的角度考虑问题，这似乎是非常有益的。你同意吗？是的。我提到如果能多达成一些妥协会更好，但这并不意味着所有的妥协都是好的，因为错误方向的妥协可能是糟糕的。爱因斯坦曾经说过要小心腐烂的妥协。有时你得到的东西看起来可能有利，甚至在道德上可以接受，但我们必须仔细判断。在政治中，我们看到双方都觉得任何妥协都会是一个坏的妥协。我认为，许多妥协可能会促进公众利益，让更多人受益。不过，历史上也存在许多现在被认为是错误的妥协。
Think about the Missouri Compromise. It extended slavery. It led to the Dred Scott decision, which a lot of historians considered the worst US Supreme Court decision in history. You could argue the Missouri Compromise is the reason one shouldn't compromise. At least when the topic is one of great moral significance, or even great economic or political significance. Maybe what I'm arguing is that on a more individual level, before you even get to examining the ramifications of this decision, I wish that we could all be a little bit better at hearing the other argument, understanding which elements of that argument have value, which elements of that argument we may disagree with for legitimate or for less legitimate reasons, and then countering with a survey of our own position that allows the other party to hear all those same elements. That's all I'm asking for.
想一下《密苏里妥协案》。它延续了奴隶制，并导致了德雷德·斯科特案裁决，很多历史学家视其为美国最高法院历史上最糟糕的决定。可以说，《密苏里妥协案》是一个人不应该妥协的原因。至少当话题涉及重大道德、经济或政治意义时是如此。也许我在说的是，在更个人化的层面上，在你甚至还没有开始考虑这项决定的影响之前，我希望我们都能更好地倾听对方的论点，理解其中哪些元素有价值，哪些元素我们可能出于合理或不太合理的原因而不同意，然后以自己的立场来回应，使对方能听到所有这些元素。这就是我所希望的。
I think that's exactly the right prescription. Thank you. Though we seem to be very, very far away from that at the moment. I wonder if it's so clear to you and to me why it doesn't come to pass. And honestly, I don't have a great reason other than retreating back to Lee Ross's observation that the reason why he thinks is such a profound insight about human nature is because it feels real to me. I don't need to debate with you about whether the world is round or flat. We know it's flat. So you often talk about modeling as an important way to change behavior, whether it's a parent and a child, a teacher and a student, whatever.
我认为这是一个非常正确的建议，谢谢你。不过，目前我们似乎离实现这个目标还非常遥远。我想知道，如果这对你我来说如此清晰，为什么却没有实现。老实说，我没有一个很好的解释，只能回到李·罗斯的观察，他认为这个看法对人性有深刻见解，因为这对我来说感觉真实。我不需要和你争论世界是圆的还是平的，我们都知道它是平的。你经常提到建模是一种改变行为的重要方式，无论是父母和孩子之间，还是老师和学生之间，都是如此。
Do you see any good contemporary public models for compromise? Well, I was recently reading a little essay by another psychologist, Sam Maglio, who's a psychologist at University of Toronto and the Rotten School of Management. And I know this little essay because he wrote it for Character Lab and he talked about intellectual humility in the context of politics. And he mentioned Spiden and he talked about the importance of admitting mistakes earlier in our now president's career. He advocated harsh penalties for crack cocaine possession and he now believes that it was a quote, big mistake. And what Sam points out is that this highly visible public figure, a role model that has the eyes of many upon him is doing what he should do, which is to admit mistakes and to, in a way, contradict his past self. And by that, maybe more of us will be able to admit mistakes, admit that the other person has a point that you hadn't thought of, take another person's perspective.
你有没有看到任何好的现代公共妥协榜样？最近，我阅读了另一位心理学家Sam Maglio的一篇小文章，他是多伦多大学和Rotten商学院的心理学家。我知道这篇文章是因为他为Character Lab撰写的，文章讨论了在政治背景中的智识谦逊。他提到了Spiden，并谈到了在我们现任总统的职业生涯早期承认错误的重要性。他曾经主张对持有裂解可卡因施以严厉惩罚，但现在他认为那是一个“大错误”。Sam指出，这位备受关注的公众人物作为榜样，正在做他应该做的事情，也就是承认错误，并在某种程度上与过去的自我相悖。通过这样做，或许我们更多的人可以承认错误，承认对方提出了你之前未曾想到的观点，从而学会站在他人的角度看问题。
So Angie, in the spirit of compromise, I propose on the coffee drinking front that either you have your coffee tomorrow morning without sugar or I put sugar in mine, which will it be? Okay, you're not proposing that we just put a quarter teaspoon of sugar in both of our coffees. No, you're right. Theoretically, you could decrease a little bit and I could increase a little bit. We could trade off. Yeah, but we're beyond that. We've learned something from Lee Ross and from Sam Maglio. I think that tomorrow morning I can wake up and have my coffee with half and half and no sugar. I just want to learn like the way that Stephen Doughner experienced it.
好吧，Angie，为了妥协，我建议就喝咖啡这件事上，你选择明天早上喝无糖咖啡，或者我在我的咖啡里加糖，你选哪个？好的，你不是在建议我们在各自的咖啡里都只加四分之一茶匙的糖。是的，你说得对。理论上，你可以少加一点糖，我可以多加一点，我们可以互相取舍。但是我们已经不再纠结于此了。我们从李·罗斯和山姆·马利奥那里学到了些东西。我想明天早上我可以喝半奶半奶油不加糖的咖啡。我只是想体验一下斯蒂芬·多纳那样的感受。
So tomorrow morning, Stephen, I'm going to have my coffee with half and half and no sugar. And tomorrow morning, you were going to have your coffee with half and half and just so you get this right, a teaspoon of sugar, which I know is a lot. So you made it sound so you were heroically perspective taking while I was getting to enjoy my coffee as I like it. But in fact, no, I have to add this horrible metabolism, busting sugar to my coffee. It's terrible for you, really. See, this is exactly what's going on in Washington. It's slightly larger. Yes. Yes. Yes. All day every day. Okay. I'm willing to put sugar in my coffee tomorrow. One teaspoon for one day. You're willing to take sugar out of your coffee tomorrow. One teaspoon for one day. I expect to get a texture mute tomorrow morning after your coffee.
所以，斯蒂芬，明天早上我要喝加半奶油但不加糖的咖啡。你明早要喝加半奶油的咖啡，不过要加一茶匙的糖。我知道这很多。你说得好像你在英雄般地理解我的需求，而我则可以享受我喜欢的咖啡。但实际上不是，我得往咖啡里加入这种对代谢有害的糖。这对你真的不好。你看，这就像华盛顿发生的一切，只不过范围稍微大一些。是的，是的，是的。整天都这样吧。我愿意在明天的咖啡里放一茶匙糖，哪怕只有一天。而你愿意在明天的咖啡里去掉一茶匙糖，也只有一天。我希望明天早上喝完咖啡后，你给我发信息说说心得。
My fear, Angela, is that you'll taste the coffee without the sugar. It'll be so disgusting. You won't be able to drink it because you can't drink your coffee. You'll be exhausted. You'll fall back asleep. I'll never hear from you again. That's my fear. Well, if you don't get a texture mute, you'll know what happened. Still to come on no stupid questions. Even in Angela, discuss why it's so challenging to come up with good, original ideas. Our quote, education system, as we like to call it, which kind of indicates the problem. The education factory.
我担心的是，安吉拉，你会尝试没有加糖的咖啡，那味道会很难喝。你可能没法喝下去，因为你就是不能喝这样的咖啡。这样一来，你会觉得很疲惫，然后又睡着了。我可能再也听不到你的消息了。这就是我的担心。嗯，如果你没有收到任何消息提示，那你就知道发生了什么事。接下来在“没有愚蠢的问题”节目中，我们将讨论为什么想出好的原创想法如此困难。我们所谓的“教育系统”，其实从名字上就能看出问题所在，就是教育工厂。
Stephen I was reading Charlie Munger's famous speech on 24 mental mistakes the other day. You're part of it, right? It's pretty famous. I've heard of it. I know who Charlie Munger is, but I'm sure you'll tell the rest of us. Charlie Munger is like the sidekick for Warren Buffett. He is a world-famous investor and self-made billionaire who, for reasons I can't quite figure out, seems to be remarkably perceptive and witty when it comes to describing human nature.
Stephen，我前几天在读查理·芒格著名演讲中关于24种思维错误的部分。你也是其中的一部分，对吧？这演讲挺有名的，我听说过。我知道查理·芒格是谁，但我相信你会告诉我们其他人。查理·芒格就像是沃伦·巴菲特的助手。他是世界闻名的投资家和白手起家的亿万富翁。对于一些我没法完全理解的原因，他在描述人性方面似乎有着异常敏锐的洞察力和智慧。
Yeah, and he's even older than Warren Buffett. Do you know how old he is? I think Charlie Munger is like 98. Holy, schmolly, really? That's a lot of years. If I have this right, Charlie Munger grew up in Omaha, Nebraska, which is where Warren Buffett grew up. I think that Charlie Munger used to work at Warren Buffett's grandfather's grocery store. Oh my gosh. That's so Omaha. That's so Raven. Well, I don't know Charlie Munger, but gosh, I should hurry up and introduce myself the guy's 98.
是啊，他比沃伦·巴菲特年纪还大。你知道他多大了吗？我记得查理·芒格大概98岁。天哪，真的这么高龄？那可真是很多年啦。如果我没记错，查理·芒格是在内布拉斯加州的奥马哈长大的，沃伦·巴菲特也是在那里长大的。我还听说查理·芒格曾在沃伦·巴菲特的祖父开的杂货店工作过。我的天哪，这太有奥马哈风格了，真像《That's So Raven》这部剧的感觉。我虽然不认识查理·芒格，但天哪，我得赶快去认识一下，他都98岁了。
So you haven't heard the speech, but you've heard of the speech. I know that Charlie Munger is very enthusiastic about collecting, analyzing and pointing out cognitive biases. Basically, he's a super fan of psychology from what I can see who then applies his understanding of those biases to investing. And then makes a lot of money. So when somebody like Charlie Munger gives a speech at a place like Harvard about the 24 major reasons that human beings misjudge, you kind of want to read what he has to say. But I did. And I can give you a couple of examples from his talk if that helps. Please.
所以你没听过那个演讲，但你听说过这个演讲。我知道查理·芒格非常热衷于搜集、分析并指出认知偏见。从我了解到的情况来看，他基本上是一个心理学的超级粉丝，然后他将这些偏见的理解应用到投资中，并因此赚了很多钱。所以，当像查理·芒格这样的人在像哈佛这样的地方发表关于人类误判的24个主要原因的演讲时，你可能会想看一看他到底说了什么。但我已经看过了，如果有帮助的话，我可以给你举几个他演讲中的例子。请让我知道。
So the first mental mistake that Charlie Munger talks about is under recognizing the power of incentives. We would never do that. Well, you're kind of hanging out with all those economists. So I was in the years with Levitt would help you avoid this. But I think what Charlie Munger wants to say is like when people aren't doing what we want them to do, that you should ask yourself, what were the incentives, the rewards and punishments of the situation? So that's one. There's also denial. He thinks that sometimes we make mental mistakes because we don't want to reckon with an uncomfortable truth.
查理·芒格谈到的第一个心理错误是低估了激励的力量。我们绝不会这样做。嗯，你可能总是和那些经济学家在一起，所以与莱维特的相处可能帮助你避免这个错误。但我想查理·芒格想表达的是，当人们没有按照我们期望的方式去做事情时，我们应该问自己，是什么样的激励、奖励或惩罚机制在起作用。这是一个方面。还有一个是否认。他认为有时我们犯下心理错误是因为我们不愿意面对让人不舒服的真相。
And let me just give you one other example. He talks about the bias of misconstruing correlation for causation. You might see two things happen together and you think that X causes Y, but really they just co-located in time. If you're the mayor of a city whose baseball team won the World Series and you have a parade for them and you didn't know better, you could think, oh, why don't I just throw another parade and throw in the World Series again? Those are correlational, not very causal.
让我再给你一个例子。他提到常见的偏见：将相关性误解为因果关系。你可能看到两件事情同时发生，然后觉得是X导致了Y，但其实它们只是同时发生罢了。假如你是一个城市的市长，你的棒球队赢得了世界大赛冠军，于是你为他们举办了一场游行。如果你不太了解情况，你可能会想：哦，那我再办一次游行，是不是又能赢得世界大赛呢？这两者只是相关性，并没有很强的因果关系。
Yeah, exactly. So he's got this list and it goes on and on and I was like, this is brilliant. It's so interesting. He's not even a trained psychologist. Marty Seligman, colleague, now former PhD advisor, psychologist, I sent him the speech when I read it because my mind was blown and Marty was like, nah, he was really unimpressed. He was like, not being wrong isn't the same as being right. So I just was wondering first, what are your reactions to this list of 24 mistakes and also whether you spend most of your time trying not to be wrong or trying to be right or I guess something else.
是啊，没错。他有一个清单，越列越多，我当时就觉得，这太棒了，真有趣。他甚至都不是一名受过训练的心理学家。我把演讲稿发给了马提·塞利格曼，他是我的同事，也是我以前的博士导师和心理学家，因为我读完后感到非常震惊。但马提并没有留下深刻印象。他说，不犯错不等于就是正确的。所以我想先问一下，你对这个包含24个错误的清单有什么看法？你大部分时间是在努力不犯错还是在努力做到正确，或者说是在追求其他什么东西？
I did look at the whole list and it felt a little bit like looking at a greatest hits collection of a band that doesn't play anymore. There were several in there that were kind of chestnutty, but to be fair, some of these chestnuts are still in psych textbooks, even though maybe they shouldn't be like the bystander apathy effect that's built around the story of Kitty Genovese, which turns out to be much more complicated and less pronounced than most people think of it as.
我看了整个列表，这感觉有点像在看一个不再演出的乐队的经典作品集。其中有几个有点老套，但公平地说，其中一些经典案例仍然出现在心理学教科书中，尽管它们可能不该如此。比如关于凯蒂·热那维斯的旁观者冷漠效应的故事，这个故事实际上比大多数人想象的要复杂得多、影响也小得多。
I also, you know, this is totally tangential. It's really interesting to me how beloved, Munger and to an even graded degree were in Buffett R, even though on paper, being investors in a whole lot of old guard, oil and gas, transportation industries that most environmentalists and climate activists hate, but somehow they have escaped that wrath entirely. And I think part of it is because they have this awesucks grandfatherly way of presenting interesting information that people just really enjoy.
这有点不相关，但我觉得很有趣的是，芒格和巴菲特非常受人喜爱。虽然从表面上看，他们是投资于许多传统行业，如石油、天然气和运输，这些行业常常遭到环保主义者和气候活动家的反对，但是他们却似乎完全避开了这些批评。我认为这部分是因为他们以一种和蔼可亲、像爷爷一样的方式呈现有趣的信息，而这种方式深受人们的喜爱。
It's true. A lot of us have heard about Warren Buffett favoring McDonald's as his restaurant of choice. I think when he makes money, he allows himself to get a hash brown in the drive-through in the morning, but if not, he just gets the egg muffin without it. I don't know, maybe they've just got a really great PR firm, but I have to say I fell under the spell of Charlie Munger when I was reading this. It's just curious to me, we often talk on the show about how we all like to build stories about ourselves and about other people. I think the story that we've told about them has always been, oh, they're so lovable and they're really good at making billions of dollars off of these old school industries that many people feel very conflicted about, but it's okay because he drives an old car and eats some McDonald's.
确实，我们许多人都听说过沃伦·巴菲特偏爱麦当劳作为他的首选餐厅。我想，当他赚钱的时候，他会允许自己在早晨的汽车餐厅买一个薯饼，但如果没有赚到钱，他就只买一个不带薯饼的蛋麦满。我不知道，也许他们只是有一个非常出色的公关公司，但我不得不说，当我读到这篇文章时，我被查理·芒格的魅力吸引住了。我感到好奇的是，我们经常在节目中谈论，我们都喜欢为自己和他人编织故事。我认为我们对他们的故事总是说：“哦，他们是如此可爱，他们非常擅长从许多人感到矛盾的老派行业中赚取数十亿美元，但没关系，因为他开旧车，吃麦当劳。”
Anyway, that was kind of tangential. So you want to know, do I spend more time trying to be right versus trying not to be wrong based on this preamble? I would say obfuscating has always been most of my time. But I think that's a really interesting question that if I think about it, I would have to say I really like to be right. In fact, I think I can be annoying and obnoxious in my desire to be right. That said, in order to get there, I have to convince myself that I'm not wrong. The way that I've tried to approach my work, and I guess life is you think of all the ways in which you could be wrong, and then you try to think of all the things that you haven't even thought of that could also make you wrong, and then you try to build up your argument for why you're right. Does that make sense?
好的，那有点扯远了。你想知道的是，基于这个开场白，我是更倾向于努力证明自己是对的，还是努力避免出错？我得说，我大多数时间都在掩饰。不过，我觉得这个问题确实很有趣。如果认真思考的话，我必须承认，我非常喜欢证明自己是对的。实际上，我在这方面的渴望可能有时会让人觉得我有点烦人。话虽如此，为了达到这一点，我必须先说服自己不会出错。我处理工作，或者说是生活的方式，就是先想想所有可能出错的地方，然后再思考那些你甚至没有考虑到的因素，这些因素也可能让你出错，之后再建立起自己是正确的论据。这能让你明白我的意思吗？
Well, Marty in his email back to me when I excitedly sent him the link to this speech said that works of creativity and other important accomplishments of human beings are not really from not getting things wrong at all. He was saying, for example, that when you have a good theory in psychology, it's not that the theory is good because it's not wrong. It's additive that makes people think about a new element. Right. But then I was thinking to myself, well, maybe this is just a two-stage thing. First, you have to have a creative idea or a proposition, or I guess if you're Charlie Munger, it has to, I don't know, occur to you that maybe you should buy Geico or something.
好的，当我兴奋地把这个演讲的链接发给马蒂时，他在回复邮件中说，人类的创造性作品和其他重要成就并不是因为完全没有出错而产生的。他举例说，比如在心理学中，一个好的理论并不是因为它没有错才好，而是因为它引入了新的元素，让人们思考新的方面。但我在想，这或许只是一个两阶段的过程。首先，你需要有一个创造性的想法或假设，或者如果你是查理·芒格，可能需要有所领悟，比如你应该买下Geico这样的公司。
The second move is to torture it to death and make sure that you didn't fall prey to 24 or more biases. I think that's a really, really good point. When you're talking about the difference between not making a mistake and actually being good, not making a mistake is no guarantee that it's actually going to produce something that's wonderful. But these are components. How did you get the idea of economics? So, Frekenomics came about in a kind of hazard way. I was writing a book about the psychology of money. So I was hanging out with a bunch of people like you, or like Colin Cameron and Richard Thaler. And I was really transfixed by the way that decision-making around money is weird. And that people who are rational all the time would often be irrational when it came to money.
第二个步骤是将其彻底分析，以确保你没有被24种或更多的偏见所影响。我认为这是一个非常、非常好的观点。当你在讨论不犯错误和真正优秀之间的区别时，不犯错误并不能保证你会创造出绝妙的东西。但这些都是组成部分。那么，你是如何想到经济学这个概念的呢？《魔鬼经济学》是一种偶然的方式诞生的。我当时正在写一本关于金钱心理学的书，所以我和一群像你这样的人，或者像科林·卡梅伦和理查德·泰勒这样的人待在一起。我被金钱决策过程中的奇怪方式深深吸引。那些在其他时候总是理性的人在金钱问题上往往会变得不理性。
And then I was asked to go write a profile of Steve Levitt, this economist at Chicago, for the New York Times magazine. Because Levitt had just won a very prestigious award in American economics. And I actually, I was so stupid, I turned down the assignment like three times because I was in the middle of this book. And finally, I was going to be in Chicago for something else. And so I looked up Levitt's papers and started to read them all. And they were so interesting and creative. And honestly, he is the kind of economist that I was trying to be as a writer, which is not just do what everybody else is doing. Don't really care too much if something is going to work, if something fascinates you do it.
然后我被要求为《纽约时报》杂志撰写一篇关于芝加哥经济学家史蒂夫·列维特的专题文章。因为列维特刚刚在美国经济学领域获得了一项非常有声望的奖项。其实，我当时真是太傻了，竟然拒绝了这个任务三次，因为我正忙于写书。最后，我正好要去芝加哥处理其他事情，于是我查阅了列维特的论文并开始阅读。那些论文实在是非常有趣和富有创意。说实话，他是那种我作为作家所希望成为的经济学家，不只是随大流，不太在意某件事是否会奏效，只要感兴趣就去做。
And so anyway, I wrote about him and then people responded strongly to the article that I wrote about his ideas. And so it was proposed that we write a book together and we did. So that's the origin story of Freakonomics, which is not, oh, Freakonomics is so great because it's not wrong. It was something creative and new and useful. Then I want to know what the origin story of Steve and Levitt's ideas are as an economist. Where do you think he gets these brilliant ideas to study abortion or sumo wrestlers? Where do they come from? Often his ideas are really simple. And very often they come from observations in which what's accepted as conventional wisdom may be wrong.
所以，事情是这样的，我写了一篇关于他的文章，人们对我写的关于他想法的文章反应非常强烈。于是有人提议我们一起写一本书，我们就这么做了。这就是《魔鬼经济学》起源的故事，并不是说《魔鬼经济学》有多伟大，而是因为它是创造性、新颖且有用的。我想知道史蒂夫和莱维特作为经济学家的想法来源是什么。他去研究堕胎或相扑选手这些绝妙的想法从哪里来呢？他的很多想法其实很简单，通常来自对那些被普遍接受的传统智慧可能是错误的观察。
So I'll give an example. This is not research of Levitt. This was researched done by another economist, formerly of the University of Chicago, Toby Mosquitz, who co-wrote a book called Scorecasting, which was about sports statistics and conventional wisdoms. I'll give you one example that I think is a really good example. If you're trying to think about the difference between being right, not being enough, not being wrong, not being enough, but being creative and explaining something to our satisfaction is really what's needed.
让我给你举个例子。这不是Levitt的研究，而是由另一位经济学家Toby Mosquitz进行的研究，他曾在芝加哥大学工作，并共同撰写了一本关于体育统计和传统观点的书，名为《Scorecasting》。我会给你一个我认为非常好的例子。如果你在思考正确与否、不够好、是否出错、不够好之间的区别时，更重要的是要有创造性地解释某些事情，以便让我们满意。
So this is about the notion of home field advantage. In all sports, home teams win more often than the visiting team. There's quite a variance in different sports. I think soccer is the one with the greatest home field advantage. And I believe that baseball is the one with the lowest. If you ask the average sportsman or athlete or broadcaster, what are the reasons you get a whole bunch of explanations ranging from athletes are more comfortable playing in their home surroundings, athletes are more comfortable sleeping in their own beds, eating their home food, the wear and tear of travel takes a lot out, et cetera, et cetera.
这段话谈论的是“主场优势”的概念。在所有运动中，主队通常比客队赢得更多比赛。各项运动的主场优势差异很大。我认为足球拥有最大的主场优势，而棒球则可能拥有最小的主场优势。如果你询问普通的运动员、运动员或解说员，他们会给出很多不同的解释，比如运动员在熟悉的环境中比赛更自如，能够在自己家中睡觉、吃家里的食物更舒适，以及旅行的疲劳对运动员的影响等等。
Toby Mosquitz looked into all these different factors that could possibly explain home field advantage. And he found that none of them really had any explanatory power except for one. Do you want to guess what the one might be? Is it that they're not jet-light? No, that's a good and reasonable guess, but no. And in fact, you could argue that in some cases being on the road is better for an athlete because you don't have to deal with the routines or hassles of home, including doing the dishes, coming up with tickets for friends and family want to come to the game, et cetera. So no, being on the road in and of itself is not a detriment. Any other guesses? Is it the fans?
托比·莫斯奎茨研究了各种可能解释主场优势的因素。他发现，除了一个因素外，其他因素都没有真正的解释力。你想猜猜可能是哪个因素吗？你觉得是因为他们没有时差疲劳吗？不，这个猜测合情合理，但答案不是这个。事实上，你甚至可以说，在某些情况下，旅行参赛对运动员反而更好，因为这样他们不用处理在家时的各种琐事，比如做家务、安排给朋友和家人的比赛门票等。所以，客场比赛并不一定是个不利因素。还有其他猜测吗？你觉得是因为粉丝吗？
So what would be the mechanism by which the fans make the home team do better? Defense. Defense. Well, I thought that fans shouted things that are detrimental to the opposing team to distract them. Or maybe alternately encourage the home team to do better. Exactly. Is that it? No, it's related, though. The fans do seem to be a factor in that the one single driver of home field advantage as identified in this research is referee bias. Oh. And it's unconscious referee bias.
那么，球迷们是通过什么机制让主队表现得更好呢？防守。防守。我本以为球迷们会喊一些对客队不利的话来分散他们的注意力。或者，可能他们会鼓励主队发挥得更好。没错，是这样吗？不完全是，但和这个有关。根据这项研究，球迷确实是影响主场优势的一个因素，而决定性因素是裁判的偏见。哦，是无意识的裁判偏见。
So as it turns out, most referees are professionals. They work really hard to not play favorites. They are the as it were referees. But here's the connection. All those noisy fans actually exert an unconscious bias on the behalf of the referees. And even if it's one extra call per game in favor of the home team or against the away team, especially in a game like soccer where there's such low scoring, one penalty kick, one goal disallowed, one off-sides call can make a huge difference. That is really fascinating. I wonder how the scientists came up with that.
结果发现，大多数裁判都是专业人士。他们非常努力地做到不偏袒任何一方。可以说，他们就是裁判。但是，有一个联系需要注意。那些吵闹的观众实际上会在无意识中对裁判产生影响。即使在每场比赛中仅仅多做出一个对主队有利或对客队不利的判罚，尤其是在像足球这样低得分的比赛中，一个点球、一个被取消的进球、一次越位判罚都可能造成巨大的影响。这真是太有趣了。我很好奇科学家们是怎么发现这个现象的。
There had to be some original inspiration to think like maybe it's the referees. I wish I could tell you exactly the origin. There have been several scholars who've worked on this over the years. And there's also interesting measurement questions. How can you prove that? So there have been instances where games are played without fans and where you can measure bias. And there's going to be a whole lot of data forthcoming from the COVID pandemic.
要想到可能是裁判的问题，一定有最初的灵感。我希望我能确切地告诉你这个灵感的来源。多年来，有几位学者在研究这个问题。同时，也存在一些有趣的测量问题。你如何证明这种偏见的存在？因此，有些比赛是在没有观众的情况下进行的，你可以在这种情况下测量偏见。即将从新冠疫情中获得大量相关数据。
Oh, yeah. The pandemic is going to enable you to test this experimentally. So the prediction is that there's much less of a home team advantage. Yeah, there should be much less. But I think the question of how one comes up with an idea like that is really at the heart of what you're asking, whether it's Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett, thinking about what are the factors that we might be overlooking, what's something that we should be examining more intently than we are. What's missing from our reckoning?
哦，对。疫情将使你能够通过实验来测试这一点。因此，预测是主队优势会小得多。是的，应该会小得多。但我认为，你真正想问的问题是如何想到这样的想法，无论是查理·芒格和沃伦·巴菲特，思考我们可能忽视了哪些因素，有哪些是我们应该更加仔细研究的。我们遗漏了什么？
And my favorite story about trying to find what's missing. It's a pretty famous story about the mathematician who worked trying to help US fighter planes being shot down in Europe during World War II. Do you know this story? I don't think so. So during the Second World War, the US military was trying to figure out how to have fewer planes shot down. So one thing they wanted to do was they wanted to put more armor on planes, probably putting more armor on planes, make some heavy, more fuel, run out of fuel, et cetera, et cetera.
我最喜欢的故事之一是关于寻找“缺失的东西”的故事。这是一个非常著名的故事，讲的是一位数学家在二战期间致力于帮助减少美国战斗机在欧洲被击落的情况。你知道这个故事吗？我想你可能不知道。
在第二次世界大战期间，美国军方试图找出如何减少飞机被击落的次数。他们的一个想法是给飞机加装更多的装甲。然而，加厚装甲会让飞机更重，需要更多燃料，这样可能会耗尽燃料，导致其他问题。
But they wanted to optimize the armor. The military thought when these planes are coming back, they have lots and lots and lots of holes around the fuselage. And then some holes around the engines and a little bit around the cockpit. So since they're getting shot so much all over the fuselage, that's probably where we should put the armor. And there was a mathematician named Abraham Wald, who said, I like your story, but I think you have it exactly backwards. I think the problem is you are seeing the planes that are returning with holes in their fuselage, which means that they actually don't need the armor there because they're able to get back. So this story is told in many places. One is in a book by Jordan Ellenberg, who I believe is a mathematician himself, and his book is called How Not To Be Wrong.
他们想要优化飞机的装甲。军方观察到这些返航的飞机机身上布满了无数弹孔，发动机周围有一些，驾驶舱附近则只有很少。但因为机身遭到密集射击，他们认为应该在机身上加装甲。然而，有位名叫亚伯拉罕·瓦尔德的数学家指出，他们的思路完全反了。他认为，问题在于我们看到的是那些成功返航、机身上有弹孔的飞机，这说明这些地方其实不需要加装甲，因为即使有这些弹孔，飞机仍然能飞回基地。这个故事在很多地方都有讲述，其中一个是在乔丹·艾伦伯格写的一本书中，他也是一名数学家，书名叫《反直觉》。
And as he writes, the missing bullet holes were on the missing planes. The reason planes were coming back with fewer hits to the engine is that planes that got hit in the engine weren't coming back. It's the missing data that you have to worry about. Yeah, exactly. And that wasn't just a burst of creative thinking. That was based on years and years and years of thinking about what evidence looks like when you can't look it in the face. You know, I think about our kids and you mean your kids and my kids separately. We haven't had kids together. Yeah, yes, that's true. I met our kids separately in their separate households. I actually think about all young people. We all went through school and so much of school is taking tests and not getting things wrong, but very little of it is having good original ideas.
当他写下这些时，他提到遗漏的弹孔在那些没有回来的飞机上。飞机返回时引擎上的弹孔较少，是因为那些被击中引擎的飞机无法返回。你需要关注的是那些缺失的数据。是的，正是如此。这不仅仅是一次有创意的思考，而是建立在多年对难以直面证据是什么样的思考基础上的。你知道吗，我想到我们的孩子，还有你的孩子和我的孩子，我们并没有共同拥有孩子。是的，没错。我指的是我们各自家庭中的孩子。其实我考虑的是所有年轻人。我们都经历过学校生活，其中很多是考试，不犯错的能力，但很少涉及到培养好的原创想法。
It's almost like since it was too hard to make a test that asked for creative original thinking, we just made tests where you could grade a kid on what they didn't get right, slash what they got wrong. I am so deeply in agreement with you and I hope so much that our quote education system is we like to call it, which kind of indicates the problem. The machine. Harkins a little bit more to the assembly line. The education factory. Yeah, I think this is something that a lot of young people when they get out of school, they kind of wake up for the first time and they realize, oh, wait a minute, I actually have to think of a solution or an idea.
这段话的大意是：因为创建测试题目要求创造性和原创思维太难了，我们就设计了一种可以根据学生答错或者没答对的题目来评分的测试。我非常赞同你的看法，我也非常希望我们所谓的“教育系统”能够有所改善，这其实就是问题所在——这个系统更像是一个机器，像一条装配线，或者说是一个教育工厂。我认为很多年轻人在离开学校后，才第一次意识到，他们实际上需要自己去思考解决方案或想法。
And it's not that people going through school aren't asked to think of ideas. They have to come up with a thesis for a paper and so on. But there is a creative instinct or muscle maybe that really does need to be developed. You know, as a writer, I've been doing this forever and it's still really hard. I have a sort of ad hoc set of criteria for the work that I do where I'm always challenging what's worth doing is something interesting to pursue. Is it true? And especially is it additive, not just piling on, not just agreeing or on the other side, not just attacking something for the sake of attack. Is it expanding my understanding?
在学校中，人们并不是没有被要求去思考创意，他们需要为论文提出论点等等。但创造力的本能或能力确实需要被培养。我作为一名作家，已经做了很长时间，仍然觉得很困难。我有一套非正式的工作标准，总是挑战什么值得做、什么值得追求。内容是否真实？特别是，是否具有增益性，而不仅仅是堆积或附和他人，也不仅仅是为了攻击而攻击。它有助于拓展我的理解吗？
And hopefully it will expand the understanding of a reader or listener. That's not about being right or wrong. It's often about looking for the piece of something that you feel hasn't really been examined yet and finding a way to explore that. Right. Let me ask you this. Finally, do you feel that you are more motivated in your work by being right, not being wrong or something different? I am, I think, more motivated about being right about something that I am worried about being wrong about some detail. Of course, I don't want to be wrong, but I think my contribution will more be about being right about something than about not making a mistake.
希望这能扩展读者或听众的理解。这与对错无关，更多是在寻找那些尚未被深入探讨的内容，并找到一种探索它的方法。对吧？那让我问你这个问题。最后，你觉得在工作中更驱动你的是什么？是为了正确，不犯错，还是其他什么？我觉得我在工作中更多的是被对某件事情正确的渴望所驱动，而不是害怕在某个细节上出错。当然，我不想犯错，但我认为，我的贡献更多是关于正确理解某个事情，而不是仅仅避免错误。
Wouldn't it be cool if, by trying to understand Charlie and Munger's speech about how not to be wrong, we discovered how not to be wrong was either wrong or at least incomplete in that we leave me to some little bit of creativity. Coming up after the break, a fact check of today's conversation. And now here's a fact check of today's conversations. During the discussion about compromise, Stephen fessiciously insists that the Earth is flat. The roundness of the Earth was empirically determined by ancient Greeks more than 2000 years ago. But the percentage of flat Earthers is still surprisingly high.
如果我们试着理解查理和芒格关于如何不犯错的演讲，却发现他们的方法本身是错误的或者至少是不完整的，是否会很有趣呢？这可能会激发我们一点点的创造力。接下来是节后的事实核查。在今天的讨论中，史蒂芬开玩笑地坚称地球是平的。古希腊人在2000多年前就已经通过实验证明了地球是圆的，但令人惊讶的是，平地球论者的比例仍然很高。
According to a 2018 scientific American analysis of Yughov survey data, between 1 and 2 percent of American adults believe that the Earth is flat. While that percentage may seem tiny, it means that several million Americans believe this. A 2016 National Science Board survey also found that 27 percent of Americans don't accept heliocentrism, 48 percent don't accept common ancestry of humans and non-human animals, and 61 percent don't accept the big bang. Later, Angela references the work of a University of Toronto psychologist who wrote a piece for character lab about President Biden and the importance of admitting mistakes. He refers to the psychologist as Sam Maglio, but his Italian surname is actually pronounced Maliyo.
根据2018年《科学美国人》对Yughov调查数据的分析，美国成年人中有1%到2%的人认为地球是平的。虽然这个比例看起来很小，但这意味着有几百万美国人持有这种看法。此外，一项2016年的国家科学委员会调查发现，27%的美国人不接受日心说，48%不相信人类和非人类动物有共同祖先，61%不接受大爆炸理论。后来，安吉拉提到了多伦多大学一位心理学家的研究，他为Character Lab撰写了一篇关于拜登总统和承认错误重要性的文章。她提到心理学家的名字是山姆·马格里奥，但他的意大利姓氏实际上应该读作"马利约"。
Finally, Stephen says that Charlie Munger is 98 years old. Munger was born in January of 1924, which actually makes him 97 years old. Seven years older than his longtime friend, Berkshire Hathaway CEO, and noted McDonald's aficionado, Warren Buffett. Buffett, a man worth over 91 billion dollars, shared in his HBO documentary Becoming Warren Buffett, that on his morning drive to the office, he'll pick up one of three items. Two sausage patties, a sausage egg and cheese sandwich, or a bacon egg and cheese sandwich. Angela was correct in saying that the billionaire chooses his breakfast based on how the stock market is doing and how, quote, prosperous he's feeling.
最后，斯蒂芬说查理·芒格98岁了。芒格出生于1924年1月，实际上他今年97岁，比他长期的朋友——伯克希尔哈撒韦公司首席执行官兼著名麦当劳爱好者——沃伦·巴菲特大七岁。巴菲特身价超过910亿美元，在他的HBO纪录片《成为沃伦·巴菲特》中表示，在开车去办公室的早晨，他会选购三样东西之一：两个香肠肉饼，一份香肠鸡蛋奶酪三明治，或一份培根鸡蛋奶酪三明治。安吉拉说得对，这位亿万富翁确实会根据股市表现和他当天的“财富感”来选择早餐。
An odd heuristic for many reasons, including the fact that he's a proud owner of the McDonald's gold card, which allows him to eat for free at any of the franchises in his hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. Buffett also reportedly eats McDonald's chicken nuggets for lunch, at least three times a week, and since childhood, about a quarter of his caloric intake has come from Coca-Cola.
这段话的大意是：这是个很奇怪的习惯，其中的一个原因是因为他是麦当劳金卡的自豪持有者，这张卡能让他在他家乡内布拉斯加州奥马哈市的任何一家麦当劳免费吃东西。据说，巴菲特每周至少有三天中午会吃麦当劳的鸡块，而且自他小时候起，他的热量摄入中有大约四分之一来自可口可乐。
Let's sit for the fact check. No Stupid Questions is Produced by Freakonomics Radio and Stitcher. This episode was produced by me, Rebecca Lee Douglas. No Stupid Questions is part of the Freakonomics Radio Network. Our staff includes Alice and Kreglo, Greg Ripon, Mark McCluskey, James Foster, and Emma Torell. Our theme song is Anne She Was by Talking Heads. Special thanks to David Byrne and Warner-Chappell Music.
让我们来核实一下事实。《没有愚蠢的问题》是由怪诞经济学电台和Stitcher联合制作的。本集由我，Rebecca Lee Douglas制作。《没有愚蠢的问题》是怪诞经济学电台网络的一部分。我们的团队成员包括Alice和Kreglo、Greg Ripon、Mark McCluskey、James Foster以及Emma Torell。我们的主题曲是Talking Heads演唱的《Anne She Was》。特别感谢David Byrne和Warner-Chappell Music。
If you have a question for a future episode, please email it to NSQ at Freakonomics.com. And if you heard Steven or Angela reference a study, an expert or a book that you'd like to learn more about, you can check out Freakonomics.com slash NSQ, where we link to all of the major references that you heard about here today. Thanks for listening.
如果您对未来的节目有问题，请发送电子邮件至 NSQ@Freakonomics.com。 如果您听到史蒂文或安吉拉提到了您想了解更多的研究、专家或书籍，可以访问 Freakonomics.com/NSQ，我们在这里链接了今天节目中提到的所有主要参考资料。感谢您的收听。
Why do you think people whistle when they're happy? I think about that because I am an unconscious or subconscious whistler, but I don't do it just when I'm happy I think. Do you do it on your nervous, like in a bug's bunny cartoons? The Freakonomics Radio Network. The head inside of everything. Stitcher.
你认为人们为什么在快乐时会吹口哨？我在思考这个问题，因为我是那种无意识或潜意识会吹口哨的人，但我想不仅限于在快乐的时候才这样。你会在紧张时吹口哨吗，就像兔八哥卡通片里那样？Freakonomics Radio Network。揭示一切背后的奥秘。Stitcher。