为何重新开始如此痛苦

当时我正在组装这个床架，就是那种底下带储物门的款式。

So I was putting together this bed frame, one of the ones that have the doors underneath.

其实我和丈夫决定在蜜月时来一场自行车旅行。

My husband and I, for our honeymoon actually, decided to do a bike trip.

装到一半时，我发现有块大面板居然装反了。

About halfway through, I noticed I'd actually put one of the big panels on backwards.

我提议走一条远离公路的自行车道，觉得会更惬意更有风景。结果刚拐上小路就发现——这路线糟透了。

I pointed out that there was a route that we could take on a bike path that was off the road and away from cars, I thought would be more pleasant and scenic. We leave the road, get on this path, and it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that, like, this is not a great route.

我停下手，清楚地记得当时在想：应该拆掉重装。但眼看快完工了，而且我实在讨厌组装家具，搬家那天又特别累。

I paused for a second and I clearly remember thinking, okay, you should probably take it apart and start over. But it looked kind of close to done and I really, really hate assembling furniture and it was such a long day of moving.

路上全是虫子，路面时软时硬，要么是碎石要么是沙地，车轮不断陷进去，我们得下车拖着挂车走。天气越来越热。

It's buggy, the path is not always firm, like it's a bit gravelly or sandy and the bike wheels keep getting kind of stuck in and we have to get off and walk with the trailer. It's hot, It's getting hotter.

最后我想：管他呢！继续装下去总会搞定的。于是我开始硬把零件往一起塞。

And I figured, you know what? I'm just gonna keep going and somehow it's just gonna work out. So I kept going. I started jamming pieces together.

我能感觉到我丈夫越来越烦躁，最后他直接问我，要不我们回去吧？我说，不行，我不想走回头路。我们今天还有50英里要骑，我不想再增加里程了。我们能继续前进吗？

I can feel my husband getting irritated and eventually he just asked me, you know, can we just go back? I was like, nope, I don't want to go backwards. We have 50 miles left to go today and I don't want to add more miles. Can we just keep going?

你大概能猜到，这真是个糟糕的主意，因为这演变成了长达45分钟的彻底折腾，最后我不得不把整个东西拆开重新组装。

And as you'd probably guess, this was a really bad idea because that turned into like forty five minutes of a complete struggle and in the end I had to take apart the whole thing and put it back together.

有个声音告诉我，那条路可能终究会更快些。但我已决心坚持自行车道。

There was a voice that was telling me that might be the faster route after all anyway. I was committed to the bike path.

没人愿意走回头路，即便那是最佳选择。这会让我们觉得之前的努力都白费了。本期节目中，我们将探讨为何我们总不愿重新审视曾被否决的方案，或彻底重启某个项目或旅程。我是凯蒂·米尔克曼博士，这里是《选择心理学》，查尔斯·施瓦布原创播客，一档关于决策背后心理学与经济学的节目。

No one wants to backtrack, even when it's the best option. It makes us feel like our past effort has been wasted. In this episode, we'll look at why we're often so reluctant to revisit an approach we'd previously passed over or restart a project or journey from scratch. I'm doctor Katie Milkman, and this is Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. It's a show about the psychology and economics behind our decisions.

我们将为您呈现关于高风险抉择的真实惊奇故事，并剖析这些故事如何与行为科学最新研究相关联。这一切旨在帮助您做出更明智的判断，避免代价高昂的错误。

We bring you true and surprising stories about high stakes choices, and then we examine how these stories connect to the latest research in behavioral science. We do it all to help you make better judgments and avoid costly mistakes.

巴拿马运河在19世纪中叶加州淘金热时期成为迫切需求。人们从美国东部各地出发前往加州。这意味着什么？是驾马车穿越落基山脉？还是绕行南美洲？

The Panama Canal became an imperative in the mid nineteenth century with the California Gold Rush. People were leaving various places in the eastern parts of the country to make their way to California. What did this mean? Did it mean wagon trains across the Rocky Mountains? Did it mean circumnavigating South America?

那些黄金又怎么办？你要怎么把金子运回来？

And what about the gold? How are you gonna get this gold back?

十九世纪八十年代末，全球贸易蓬勃发展，但地理因素仍造成巨大的时间延误与成本负担。船只若要从大西洋驶往太平洋，必须绕行南美洲最南端，这是一段漫长且有时危险的迂回路线。而穿越中美洲的捷径有望改变一切。

In the late eighteen eighties, global trade was booming, but geography still imposed huge delays in costs. To move from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, ships had to round the southern tip of South America, a long and sometimes dangerous detour. A shortcut through Central America promised to change everything.

下一个伟大构想是：何不开凿一条运河？大家好，我是克利福德·泰斯，弗吉尼亚州雪兰多大学的经济学教授。

The next big idea was, what about a canal? Hello. I'm Clifford Theiss. I'm a professor of economics at Shenandoah University in Virginia.

克利福德研究并撰文探讨基础设施如何塑造全球贸易、经济增长和财富流动。自1914年通航以来，巴拿马运河对贸易产生了极其重要的影响。但它的建造却经历了长达数十年的野心博弈、代价高昂的失误、工程挑战与生命牺牲。这项工程是人类历史上最宏大的壮举之一——在巴拿马地峡开辟连接两大洋的航道。这里山脉纵横、丛林密不透风、沼泽深不可测、暴雨倾盆、烈日灼人、湿气令人萎靡、疫病横行，还拥有全球最复杂的地质构造之一。

Clifford studies and writes about how infrastructure shapes trade, growth, and the flow of wealth across the world. The Panama Canal has been enormously important for trade ever since it opened in 1914. But building it was a decades long struggle of ambition, costly mistakes, engineering challenges, and lives lost. Its construction was one of the largest undertakings in human history, to carve a pathway between two oceans through the isthmus of Panama. It was a land of mountains, impenetrable jungle, deep swamps, torrential rains, hot sun, debilitating humidity, pestilence, and some of the most geologically complex land formations in the world.

地峡所呈现的气候挑战与地理挑战都极其巨大。

The climactic challenge and the geographic challenge of the isthmus was enormous.

开凿巴拿马水道的构想已存在数百年。加利福尼亚淘金热和随后的巴拿马铁路重燃了这个梦想。问题在于：谁能承担这个庞大工程？答案是：法国。

The idea of cutting a waterway across Panama had been around for centuries. The California Gold Rush and then the Panama Railroad revived the dream. The question was who would tackle this massive project? The answer, France.

法国人为何感兴趣？纯粹出于商业考量。他们认为这有利可图。

What was the French interest? It was business. They were thinking this would be profitable.

至1869年，法国工程师已成功建成苏伊士运河——这条连接地中海与红海的海平面运河，将欧亚航程缩短了数月。苏伊士运河是法国的辉煌胜利，使该国跃居全球商业中心，成为智慧与影响力的象征。而最受赞誉的工程奇迹缔造者，是一位名为斐迪南·德·雷赛布的法国外交官。

By 1869, French engineers had successfully completed the Suez Canal, a sea level canal connecting the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, slashing months off the journey between Europe and Asia. The Suez Canal was a triumph for France. It put the country at the very heart of global commerce, a symbol of ingenuity and influence. And the man most applauded for this marvel of engineering was a French diplomat by the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps.

费迪南德·德·雷赛布是一位伟大的企业家。他不仅擅长筹集资金，还善于管理真正的大型项目。他刚刚完成了苏伊士运河的建设，这本身就是一项令人印象深刻的成就。因此，他现在正在寻找下一个大项目。

Ferdinand de Lesseps was a great entrepreneur. He was great at raising money as well as managing really big projects. He's just coming off the construction of the Suez Canal, which in his own way is very impressive. So he's now looking for the next big project.

费迪南德·德·雷赛布出身于法国外交官世家。他的父亲是法国外交官，他的叔叔也是，祖父同样如此。他并未学习工程学。

So Ferdinand de la Sepps was descended from a line of French diplomats. His father was a French diplomat. His uncle was. His grandfather was. He did not study engineering.

他也未曾学习商业。

He did not study business either.

我是丹尼尔。

This is Daniel.

我叫丹尼尔·达马托斯，是金融史博客《挑衅咖啡馆》的作者。苏伊士运河最终取得了巨大成功。工程始于1859年，十年内便告竣工。

My name is Daniel Damatos. I am the author of Taunting Coffee House, a blog on financial history. The Suez Canal turns out to be a great success. Construction starts in 1859. It's finished within ten years.

虽然耗时较长，但这条全长200公里（约120英里）的运河让他声名鹊起。当时法国工程师在全球享有盛誉——在世界上这类人才还相当稀少的年代，法国拥有顶尖的工程类大学。通过苏伊士运河项目，德·雷赛布不仅被视为极其成功的商人，更成为提升法国全球实力与威望的代表人物。

It takes a while, but it's a 200 kilometer or about a 120 mile long canal. It makes him famous. It's a time when French engineers are particularly famous in the world. France has some of the best engineering universities at a time when actually such a thing was pretty rare in the world. And de Lesseps becomes known as this very, very successful businessman and also someone who advances France's sort of power and prestige in the world through the Suez Canal project.

在那个时代，如果有哪个国家能修建横跨巴拿马地峡的运河，那必定是由雷赛布领军的法国。

At the time, if any country could build a canal across the Isthmus Of Panama, it would be France, with Lesseps leading the charge.

于是，雷赛布成立了一家公司来建造一条横跨巴拿马的运河，但在此之前，他实际上参与了多个探索开凿运河可能性的组织，甚至在公司成立之前。其中一个组织派遣了一支探险队前往巴拿马和哥伦比亚（当时巴拿马是哥伦比亚的一部分）。这支探险队由一位名叫吕西安·拿破仑·波拿巴·怀斯的人领导，他实际上是拿破仑·波拿巴兄弟的后裔。

So Lesseps founds a company to build a canal across Panama, but before then, he's actually involved in various organizations that are exploring the possibility of building a canal, even before the company is established. And one of these organizations sends an expedition team to Panama and Colombia. Panama was at that point a part of Colombia. And one of these expeditions is led by a man named Lucienne Napoleon Bonaparte Wise. He was actually descended of Napoleon Bonaparte's brother.

探险队返回法国后，建议建造一条带有船闸的运河。

So the expedition team returns to France recommending a canal with locks.

船闸，如果你不熟悉的话，是一种带有两套闸门的水密舱室，用于在不同水位的水域之间升降船只。

Locks, if you're not familiar, are watertight chambers with two sets of gates used to raise or lower boats between stretches of water that are at different levels.

这一建议被雷赛布否决了，他有在埃及建造海平面运河的经验，但没有建造带船闸的运河的经验。

And this is rejected by Lesseps, who has experience building a sea level canal in Egypt, but not a canal with locks.

海平面运河本质上是从陆地上挖出的一条长而连续的沟槽，连接两个海平面入口。苏伊士运河就是这样建造的。现在回到雷赛布。

A sea level canal is essentially a long, uninterrupted trough dug out of the land to connect two sea level entrances. This is how the Suez Canal was constructed. Now back to Lesseps.

他再次派出探险队，他们返回巴拿马。此时已是1877年，他们带着两项任务出发。

He sends the expedition team out again, so they return to Panama. By now it's 1877, and they're going with two missions.

第一个目标是继续勘测建造运河的区域。第二个是从哥伦比亚政府那里获得特许权。令人惊讶的是，这支队伍在巴拿马地区停留的时间很短。

The first objective was to continue to stake out the area where they're going to build the canal. The second was to secure a concession from the government of Colombia. Surprisingly, the team spent little time in the Panama region.

这看起来非常敷衍。实际上，怀斯大部分时间都在哥伦比亚的波哥大，从政府那里争取特许权。他们这次从法国回来后，推荐了一条无船闸的运河，这正是雷赛布想要的。

It seems very half hearted. In fact, Wise is actually spending most of his time in Bogota, in Colombia, securing the concession from government. And when they returned from France this time, they recommend a canal without locks, which is exactly what Lesseps wanted.

雷赛布曾凭借其海平面苏伊士运河的成功向投资者推销这个项目。他对海平面工程很熟悉。虽然需要更多的挖掘工作，但它注定会更有利可图，因为完成后摩擦更少。海平面运河效率更高，因为它允许船只直接航行通过，无需停顿，无需机械装置。

Lesseps had sold the project to its funders based on his sea level Suez Canal success. He was familiar with a sea level project. And while it required more excavation, it was bound to be more profitable because when finished, there's less friction. A sea level canal is more efficient because it allows ships to sail right through. There's no stopping, no machinery.

相比之下，船闸运河通过一系列水坝蓄水的舱室升降船只。建造起来要复杂得多，完成后操作也更耗时。

A locked canal, by contrast, lifts and lowers ships through a series of chambers using dammed water. It's much more complicated to build and more time consuming to operate once it's completed.

因此，无船闸的运河，像苏伊士运河那样的海平面运河，具有很大的吸引力。

So there was a lot of appeal for a canal without locks, a sea level canal, like in the style of Suez.

1879年，当雷赛布邀请一群杰出的工程师来权衡如何着手巴拿马运河的建设时，除了少数特别有资格的人外，他们几乎都同意他的观点。

And when Lesseps invited a group of prominent engineers in 1879 to weigh in on how to approach the Panama Canal construction, they almost all agreed with him, save for a few uniquely qualified individuals.

其中一位名叫阿道夫·戈丹的人相当杰出，因为他领导着一个大型政府土木工程部门，也是那里少数有在热带地区建造经验的人之一。他曾在墨西哥参与过一个铁路项目，熟悉该地区特有的危险。因此，他反对海平面运河，支持一项需要较少工作的方案。

One of them is a man named Adolphe Godin, and he is rather distinguished because he heads a big government civil engineering department, and he's also one of the few people there who has experience building anything in the tropics. He had previously worked on a railroad project in Mexico and was familiar with the dangers unique to that area. So he's arguing against the sea level canal in favor of something that's going to require less work.

海平面方案的现实，尤其是在世界的这个部分，是前期需要做更多的工作。大量的泥土和岩石需要通过山区地形移动。但那天在场的工程师大多数从未去过巴拿马，包括雷赛布。他们不知道项目将面临什么样的挑战，或者至少不知道这些挑战会有多极端。因此，尽管有严重的反对意见，包括来自亚历山大·古斯塔夫·埃菲尔的反对——是的，就是埃菲尔铁塔的那个埃菲尔——雷赛布还是继续推进了他的海平面计划。

The reality of a sea level approach, especially in this part of the world, is that it would require a lot more work up front. Massive amounts of earth and rock need to be moved through mountainous terrain. But most of the engineers in the room that day had never been to Panama, including Lesseps. They didn't know what kinds of challenges the project would face, or at least not how extreme they might be. So despite serious objections, including one from Alexander Gustave Eiffel, yes, of Eiffel Tower fame, Lesseps went ahead with his sea level plan.

项目开局不利。几乎从一开始，雷赛布就不得不降低成本估算，以争取足够的支持并确保资金到位。

The project did not get off to a good start. Almost immediately, Lesseps had to reduce the cost estimate in order to garner enough support and secure funding.

最初，为这条运河项目设计的成本预算是12亿瑞士法郎。这是雷赛布为巴拿马运河项目必须筹集的金额。而在当时，12亿瑞士法郎堪称天文数字，相当于现今约70亿至75亿美元。

Initially, the cost estimate that's devised for this canal project is CHF1,200,000,000. That is the amount that Lesseps would have had to raise to fund his Panama Canal project. And CHF1,200,000,000 would have been an astronomical amount of money at the time. It would be the modern day equivalent of about 7 to maybe even 7 and a half billion US dollars.

这将使其成为有史以来最大规模的私营基础设施项目之一，仅获得部分政府支持。雷赛布不得不主要依靠自己来推广和融资该项目，但起初并未成功。

That would make it one of the largest private infrastructure projects ever attempted, with only some government backing. Lesseps was left to promote and finance the project largely by himself, and he was not initially successful.

他未能从投资者那里筹集到足够资金。于是，他前往巴拿马。这是他首次在旱季造访该国，当时气候相对温和。此行归来后，他提出了修订后的成本估算——略超6.5亿瑞士法郎，并最终成功筹得该笔款项。

He's not raising enough money from investors. So he goes to Panama. This is his first visit to the country during the dry season when the weather is relatively mild. And he comes back from that trip with a revised cost estimate of a little over CHF650,000,000, and he is able to ultimately raise that amount of money.

凭借原预算一半的资金，项目启动了，随后面临一系列挑战。必须控制查格里河的水势。地形坡度导致暴雨使河水暴涨，形成山洪。需要移除的土石方量极其庞大，这项任务严重考验着19世纪的机械设备。地质结构也不稳定。

With half of the original budget, the project kicks off, and a series of challenges follow. The Chagris River had to be controlled. The terrain slopes meant that heavy rainfall caused the river to swell, creating flash floods. The amount of earth and rock that had to be removed was colossal, a task that seriously challenged nineteenth century machinery. The geology was unstable.

由火山岩、软黏土和海洋沉积物构成的地质变幻莫测。致命的滑坡屡次摧毁已挖掘的坑壁，掩埋设备并夺走工人生命。巴拿马炎热多雨的气候造就了茂密且快速生长的丛林，被清理的区域很快又恢复原貌。还有蚊子，数不清的蚊子。为防洪而堵塞的溪流形成死水潭，滋生了更多蚊虫。

Made up of volcanic rock, soft clay, marine deposits, it was unpredictable. Deadly landslides collapsed excavated walls again and again, burying equipment and killing workers. Panama's hot, rainy climate makes for a dense, fast growing jungle, so relentless that cleared areas quickly reclaim themselves. And mosquitoes, So many mosquitoes. Streams were blocked to manage floods, creating stagnant pools that bred even more of the insects.

疟疾和黄热病在工人中肆虐，夺走了数千人的生命。

And malaria and yellow fever swept through the crews, killing thousands.

A

A

几年过去，海平面方案显然行不通了。项目已严重偏离轨道。

few years in, it's increasingly apparent that the sea level approach isn't working. The project is way off track.

因此在1885年后，运河建设面临诸多挑战。这是个漫长而痛苦的过程，整个1886和1887年都在处理这些问题。新任命的项目总监暗示，继续当前的海平面运河方案存在隐患，并试图说服雷赛布改用包含船闸的改良设计方案。

So over 1885, there's a lot of challenges that come up in the construction of the canal. This is a long tortured process. This is what 1886 and 1887 is spent on. There's a new director appointed. There have been a lot of turnover in the Panama Canal project, and he insinuates that there is trouble with continuing down the current course of a sea level canal and attempts to convince Lesseps to go with a modified design that would involve locks.

雷赛布于1886年第二次前往巴拿马，此行同时也是为了安抚投资者——因为部分问题在欧洲已公开化。

Lesseps goes back to Panama, his second trip to the country in 1886. He's also there to reassure investors at the same time because some of this has become public back in Europe.

当时已明确海平面运河在现有条件下无法实现。唯一成功的希望在于采用高水位船闸运河方案。但雷赛布坚决反对，认为这是对他最初否决方案的倒退。

It had become clear that a sea level canal couldn't be achieved under the circumstances. The only remaining prospect for success lay in a high level Loch Canal. But Lesseps resisted. A Loch Canal would be backtracking, reverting to a plan he had originally rejected.

直到1886年底，雷赛布仍不相信海平面运河不可行，但他承认存在更广泛的问题。事实上他相当公开地承认了这些问题，并反思苏伊士运河的经验相对简单，而巴拿马项目将更具挑战性。

Lesseps, even at the end of 1886, is not convinced that a sea level canal cannot be built, but he's acknowledging that there are wider problems. And he's actually quite publicly acknowledging these problems and that the experience from Suez was just a simpler experience, that this is going to be more challenging.

当雷赛布最终同意研究替代方案时，他又耗费九个月时间研究规划才采取行动。

When Lesseps finally agreed to explore alternatives, he spent another nine months studying plans before taking action.

在1886年至1887年初期间，陆续有各种报告发布。有些是政府报告，有些则是公司自行委托的内部报告，这些报告对当前工程方向日益表示怀疑。其中一份报告直截了当地建议将项目转为新方案——建造船闸的方案。莱塞普斯在整个1887年都犹豫不决，直到当年11月才终于宣布改变计划，放弃海平面运河项目。

Over the course of 1886 and early eighteen eighty seven, there are various reports that are released. Some are government reports. Some are actually internal reports commissioned by the company itself, and they are increasingly doubtful of the current course of things. And one of these reports does just flat out recommend converting a project to a new plan, one that involves constructing locks. Lesseps' waivers over the course of 1887, and really only in November that year announces the change in plans and the abandonment of the sea level canal project.

至此，莱塞普斯已为海平面方案投入了大量时间、资金和声誉。承认该方案行不通，就意味着要承认这些努力和许多生命都白白浪费了。

By this point, Lesseps had invested enormous amounts of time, money, and prestige into the sea level plan. Admitting it wouldn't work would have meant acknowledging that much of that effort and many lives had been wasted.

而且他花了数年时间，以海平面运河项目为由说服投资者注资他的公司。当成千上万人都指望你的事业时，我认为这肯定会让他非常犹豫是否要回头向投资者寻求更多资金——尤其这次拿出的还是他多年来一直反对的方案。

And he had spent years convincing investors to invest in his company on the basis of a sea level canal project. And when you have that many people counting on your venture, I think it certainly would have made him quite hesitant to go back to his investors and ask for more money, but this time with a plan that he had been arguing against for years.

到1887年，法国工程师确认在巴拿马建造高位船闸运河可行，这样船舶既能通航，又为日后疏浚至海平面留有余地。莱塞普斯勉强同意该方案。至1888年，工程进展顺利。莱塞普斯试图筹集更多资金，但不幸的是为时已晚——资金链断裂了。

By 1887, French engineers confirmed that a high level lock canal through Panama was possible, allowing vessels to transit while leaving open the option to dredge to sea level later. And Lesseps reluctantly agreed to this plan. By 1888, work was progressing well. Lesseps was trying to raise more money, but unfortunately, it was too little, too late. The money ran out.

法国人修建巴拿马运河的尝试，后来被称为巴拿马事件，最终以丑闻收场。约80万投资者因利塞特公司的破产失去了毕生积蓄，更令人痛心的是超过2.2万人丧生。由于某位关键人物拒绝回头采纳他最初否决的方案——即便该方案被证明是唯一可行路径——最终导致项目及其支持者走向毁灭。最终，由后来居上且技术更先进的美国人，结合法国人留下的重要经验教训，建成了今天我们熟知的巴拿马运河。自1914年运河竣工至今，已过去了一个多世纪。

The French attempt at the Panama Canal, later known as the Panama affair, ended in scandal. Some 800,000 investors lost their life savings in Lisette's company's bankruptcy, and there's the more painful number of over 22,000 lives lost. One man's unwillingness to backtrack and adopt a plan he'd initially rejected as soon as it became clear this was the only viable path ultimately brought ruin to the project and to those who believed in it. In the end, the Panama Canal took Americans, arriving later with more advanced technology, as well as some key French lessons in hand to finish the canal we know today. It's been more than a century since the Panama Canal was completed in 1914.

它已成为全球贸易的基石。每年约有来自170多个国家的1.4万艘船只通过其船闸，承载着全球约6%的海运贸易量。丹尼尔·德马托斯的博客《陶汀咖啡屋》融汇了金融、经济与历史。克利福德·泰斯是雪兰多大学的经济学教授。您可以在节目注释中及schwab.com/choiceology找到更多信息及其作品链接。

It stands as a cornerstone of global commerce. Each year, about 14,000 ships from more than 170 countries pass through its locks, carrying roughly 6% of the world's seaborne trade. Daniel Dematos' blog, The Taunteen Coffee House, marries finance, economics, and history. Clifford Theiss is a professor of economics at Shenandoah University. You can find more information along with links to their work in the show notes and at schwab.com/choiceology.

费迪南德·德·利塞特在巴拿马的失败堪称史诗级灾难。但听完这个故事，您或许会对利塞特产生些许同情。虽然我们多数人不会参与如此规模的项目，但那种不愿走回头路的心态人皆有之。如果我们已决定选择方案A而非方案B，中途放弃A转而采用B的想法听起来相当糟糕。我的下一位嘉宾发表的新研究，正好解释了为何我们如此抗拒在项目或其他追求中半途折返。

Ferdinand de Lisette's failure in Panama was one of epic proportions. But in hearing the story, you may have felt some sympathy for Lissep's. While most of us won't be involved in projects of this magnitude, we can all relate to the desire to avoid retracing our steps. If we've made a decision to pick plan a over plan b, the idea of abandoning plan a in the middle only to adopt plan b sounds pretty awful. My next guest has published new research that helps explain why we're so loathe to double back in the middle of a project or other pursuit.

克莱顿·克里彻与他的合作者克里斯汀·赵共同发现了一种他们称之为‘折返厌恶’的心理现象。其定义为：当需要撤销已取得的进展才能采用更高效的方式达成目标时，人们对此表现出的抗拒心理。克莱顿·克里彻是加州大学伯克利分校哈斯商学院的营销学、认知科学与心理学教授。嗨，克莱顿。欢迎来到《选择心理学》。

Clayton Critcher, along with his collaborator Christine Cho, have identified what they call doubling back aversion. It's defined as a reluctance to pursue more efficient means to a goal when doing so requires undoing progress you've already made. Clayton Critcher is a professor of marketing, cognitive science, and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business. Hi, Clayton. Welcome to Choiceology.

是的，凯蒂。非常感谢你的邀请。

Yeah, Katie. Thanks so much for having me.

能否举例说明哪些情境下‘折返厌恶’特别容易出现，并导致我们做出糟糕决策？

Could you give me examples of some of the situations where you think doubling back aversion is particularly prone to come up and lead us to make bad decisions?

当然。我先举两个启发我们开展这个项目的典型案例。第一个，我住在旧金山市中心，出行基本靠步行。每次离开公寓大楼时，我总要立即决定向左走还是向右走。我注意到，如果选择了某个方向——比如向左走——可能走完一个街区后，我会意识到其实另一条路线更快。

Sure. I'll give you two motivating examples that were actually the motivating examples for us in starting this project. So one, I live in Downtown San Francisco, so I I walk most places. So as soon as I leave my condo building, I'm always going left or I'm going right as soon as I walk out the door. And I've noticed that if I head in a certain direction, so let's say I head out going left, maybe I'll go a block down and I'll think, you know, it would actually be a lot quicker if I had gone the other route.

事实上，如果立刻掉头走最初该选的路线会更快，但我几乎从不这样做。这不仅仅是因为害怕在人行道上显得可笑，更是因为要折返已经走过的路让人感觉很不舒服。另一个例子来自我频繁往返美国东西海岸的经历。从旧金山直飞纽约的航班通常很贵，因为主要面向商务旅客，而经停其他城市会便宜很多。

And actually, it would be faster if I just made a u-turn right now and went the way that I should have gone to begin with, but I almost never do that. And it's not just because I'm afraid of looking ridiculous on the sidewalk, but it's just that it seems kind of painful to retrace all of those steps that you've just taken. The other way in which this came up was there was a time where I was flying a lot between the West Coast and the East Coast going to New York. And often the direct flight from San Francisco to New York is pretty expensive because it caters to business travelers. And so it'd be a lot cheaper to do a stopover somewhere.

所以我经常先飞洛杉矶再转机去纽约。有次从洛杉矶飞纽约遇到长时间延误，航空公司APP提供了改签选项。有趣的是，最快到达纽约的方案竟是先飞回旧金山再转直飞航班——完全免费。但‘折返’这个概念在这里显得很荒谬：飞回出发地？我最终没选这个方案。我记得当时想：如果经停点是丹佛或达拉斯，我很乐意为此节省几小时。

So I was often flying down to LA and then heading on from LA to New York. The problem one time was I had a really long delay going from Los Angeles to New York and the airline gave me an option in their app to change to another flight that would allow me to get to New York more quickly. So what was kind of funny is that when I saw the first option that would get me there the fastest was actually to fly back to San Francisco and then take the direct flight to New York. So for no additional charge, but the idea of retracing those steps metaphorically here, flying back to where I started from seemed crazy and I didn't do it. But I remember thinking if that stopover were somewhere else in the country, if it were in Denver, if it were in Dallas, then I would have happily done that to shave a few hours off the rest of my day.

尽管折返原路是最快捷的方案，但这种心理厌恶感让我最终放弃了最优选择。

But doubling back there, even though it was gonna be the most efficient way to get me where I was going, was just too aversive to actually do. And so I I didn't do it.

这些例子非常有趣，但同样有趣的是你选择了两个涉及身体动作的例子。因为我最初读到这项研究时，首先想到的是我们在根据反馈修改学术论文时的体验——我们多么抗拒舍弃原有研究、按审稿人建议重做实验或重写章节，即便这能提升最终稿件质量。因为推翻已完成的工作实在太痛苦了。你有过这种感受吗？在我看来，这种心理不仅存在于不愿折返的体力活动中，也体现在我们的工作成果上。

Those examples are so interesting, but it's also interesting that you chose two examples that involve physical movement. Because when I first read about this work, the first thing I thought about was the experience we have when we're revising an academic paper in response to feedback and how we resist throwing out our original studies and redoing them in new ways that critics have suggested or rewriting sections, even if it would improve the final manuscript. Because it feels so painful to undo the work we've already completed. Did that come to mind for you at all? Because to me, it seems like it's not just about the physical activities where we wouldn't wanna double back, but it's also about our work products.

我认为完全正确。体力活动的例子最容易引发人们共鸣。但我在工作中观察到的折返厌恶现象，与你提到的论文写作略有不同。对于不熟悉学术论文写作流程的人，我常告诉学生：论文最难写的是引言部分。这部分最缺乏明确的结构规范，是我们工作中定义最模糊的环节。

I think that's exactly right. So the physical examples are the ones that I find most easily resonate with people first. But where I see doubling back aversion now all the time in my work life is a slight variance on what you said in terms of paper writing. So for people who may not know kind of the process of writing an academic paper, I always think and I always tell my students to reassure them that the hardest part of writing a paper is writing the introduction of a paper. It's the part in our job that is the least well defined of what exactly the structure of a paper should look like.

因此在指导学生写作时，我总是让他们先完成初稿。过去我的指导方式是逐行逐句修改批注，试图推动稿件达到理想状态。但经过折返厌恶研究后，我意识到最高效的方法（虽然学生可能略感痛苦）是直接说：让我们删除现有内容，讨论当前方法的优缺点，然后重新开始。

And so in my writing process with students, I always have them write the first draft. And I used to work as an advisor by taking what they did and thinking, how do I go through line by line, sentence by sentence and try to modify this or give comments to try to help push us toward what I think will be a good final product? What I have realized after the doubling back aversion project is sometimes the most efficient way forward is and it could be a little bit painful for the student involved, but to actually say, alright. Let's actually delete what we've done so far. Let's have a discussion about what was good, what maybe wasn't about this approach, and then just start over.

这看似是倒退，但往往是达成令所有人满意成果的最高效路径。

That can feel like you're going backward, but I think it's often the most efficient way to a final product that everyone is happy with.

这个例子太棒了。我想从宏观讨论转向具体科学验证，因为你设计了非常精巧的实验来证明折返厌恶不仅是主观感受，而是真实存在的心理现象。能谈谈你论文中最能证明这个问题的实验吗？

I love that example. So I wanna move from talking high level about these ideas and all their implications to actually getting into some of the science because you did some really elegant experiments to demonstrate that doubling back aversion isn't just a thing we perceive in the world, but is a very real phenomenon that plagues us. Could you talk a little bit about your favorite study from your paper demonstrating that doubling back aversion is a real problem for people?

参与者进入实验室后，需在虚拟现实中行走。我们真正关注的是他们的路径选择。起初虚拟世界中只有一条前进路线，他们向前行走10-15步后会看到地图。

So our participants, they had come into our lab. They had to walk in a virtual reality world. Now what we were actually interested in was what was the route that they would actually take. So in the virtual reality world, as they started off, it looks like there was only one way forward. So they would take about 10 or 15 virtual steps forward, and then they arrived at a map.

地图显示有两种抵达终点的路径：一条明显更长的路线需要继续前进左转绕行；另一条短20%的路线在两种实验条件下有所不同。对照组需右转后折返几步左转绕行（比长路线快20%）；而在折返厌恶组，参与者会发现若直接后退至起点，有条与对照组捷径等长的新路线。

And when they got to the map, they saw there are actually two ways to get to that endpoint. So one was a clearly longer route that involved continuing forward, taking a left, veering around, arriving at the endpoint. But the other route was about 20% shorter, and it was slightly different between our two conditions. So in a control condition, you had to veer right, then take a few steps back, veer left, go around and you could get there, like I said, about 20% more quickly. In the doubling back aversion condition, once you saw the map, you saw, oh, actually, if I just walk directly backward to the beginning, then there's a faster route there that's the same length as the short route in our our other condition, our control condition.

但这些人群实际愿意掉头折返、走U型路线原路返回的可能性要低25到30个百分点，尽管这样做最终会节省时间。对于我们这些经常做实验的人来说，我们知道大多数参与者的主要目标是尽快离开那里。因此他们自然有动力尽可能快地达到终点状态。但即便明知会耗费更长时间，他们仍宁愿浪费更多时间也不愿折返。

But there people are about 25 or 30 percentage points less likely to want to actually double back, take that U-turn retrace those steps, even though it was going to save them time in the end. And for those of us who do a lot of experiments, we know for most of our participants, I think their main goal is to get out of there relatively quickly. So they were naturally incentivized to try to reach that end state as quickly as possible. But they were willing to waste more time even though it was gonna take them longer to avoid doubling back.

能否谈谈这种现象的成因？虽然直觉上我们都不喜欢走回头路，但为什么这种感受如此痛苦？是什么样的心理机制让我们回避这个过程？

And could you talk a little bit about what causes this? I mean, it's very intuitive that we don't enjoy doubling back. But, you know, why is that so painful? What is it about our psychology that makes us avoid this process?

最初我们有两个关于折返厌恶驱动因素的假设。这是那种我们前期完全无法判断哪个假设正确的项目——对我来说这类项目最令人兴奋。我们并非持有一个明确观点而另一个只是所谓的'稻草人假说'，而是真的不知道哪个更接近真相。

So when we started out, we had two different ideas about what might drive doubling back aversion. And this was one of those projects where upfront, we really didn't know which one was right. And those are the most exciting projects for me. It wasn't like we had one clear idea and the other was what we might call a straw man hypothesis. We really didn't know which one was true.

其中一个看似合理的解释是：如果要返回起点重新开始，人们主观上会觉得达到最终状态需要更长时间。毕竟这中间存在本可避免的无效努力。换句话说，人们可能没有意识到折返策略往往具有的效率优势。

So one that seemed plausible to us was that if you're gonna go back to the beginning, start over, double back, and then proceed. It just seems like it's gonna take a lot longer to actually reach that end state. After all, you're doing some wasted effort in there that you could have avoided. And so that might just seem like it's gonna actually take more time in the end. In other words, maybe people don't realize or recognize the efficiency advantage that often comes from doubling back.

我们发现的证据非常微弱，仅偶尔支持这个观点。多数情况下，人们其实明白折返后重新出发反而更快。真正的原因是：当涉及折返时，人们对已完成工作和剩余工作的主观认知会发生改变。人们极度抗拒认为过去的努力是徒劳的——直接折返意味着默认此前为到达当前位置所做的努力都被浪费了。

We found very weak evidence that only sometimes supported that idea. For the most part, people realized that it was actually quicker to double back and then proceed again from the beginning. Instead, what we found was people thought about the work that they had already done or the work that they have left to do in a subjectively different way when they involve doubling back. People are really averse to feeling like efforts that they have put in in the past were a waste. So if you directly double back, you're implicitly acknowledging that you wasted those efforts to get you to where you are at the current point.

因此掉头重来会让你对已付出的努力产生负面情绪。讽刺的是，这种保护心理（不愿承认自己在做无效努力）反而会导致你未来浪费更多时间——因为选择那些无需折返但效率低下的路线。这揭示了一个更广泛的命题：人们过分执着于对过去行为的自我肯定，却往往不擅长前瞻性思考。事实上过去已成定局，我们唯一能做的就是在当前状态下做出最优决策。

And so turning around starting over kinda makes you feel bad about the effort that you've already put in. Of course, the irony is that in an effort to try to protect your own psyche and feel like you haven't been engaging in wasteful efforts is you're gonna actually waste more time in the future by taking those longer inefficient routes that don't involve doubling back. So I think that connects to a broader theme that people are very focused on feeling good about what they have already done in the past. And often they are not good at thinking about the future and what is the best way forward, recognizing the past is fixed, that can't be changed. All we can do in our lives going forward is try to make the best decisions given the the current status quo.

确实。这个解释让我联想到众所周知的'沉没成本效应'——对已付出且不可回收成本的过度关注；以及'承诺升级'现象——即使明知当前方案非最优仍坚持原有决策。有意思的是，这两个话题我们往期节目都曾讨论过。

Yeah. Well, that explanation, the paper, and the research make me think about what we know about people's inability to ignore sunk costs. Right? Costs that have already been exerted or money that you've already spent that's not recoverable at this point, but we still seem to fixate on that. And also our tendency to escalate commitment to whatever course of action we've already selected, even when it's not the best course of action, which are actually both topics we've discussed in previous episodes of this show.

所以这感觉像是一种非常相关的偏见，但我也知道它是不同的。你能谈谈是什么让它区别于承诺升级和沉没成本谬误吗？

So it feels like a very related bias, but I also know it's distinct. Could you talk a little bit about what makes this a distinct bias from escalation of commitment and the sunk cost fallacy?

当然。我认为它们是相关的。我认为它们属于同一类效应家族，但在产生原因和具体表现形式上略有不同。沉没成本谬误有几种不同类型。我认为最相关的一种是你提到的所谓承诺升级。

Sure. I think they're related. I think they're part of the same family of effects, but I think they're a little bit different in what gives rise to them and just the specific form that they take. So there's a few different types of sunk cost fallacies. I think the most relevant one is one that you alluded to what's called escalation of commitment.

经典的例子是，我在某个项目上投入了资金，这是一个失败的项目，我清楚地意识到它几乎肯定是个失败的项目。但我不想因为把钱投在一个实际上是糟糕的想法上而感到难过。我抱着这种几乎不理性的希望，认为只要继续投入更多资源，也许情况会好转并取得成功。这种情况下，明智的做法应该是放弃目标，承受最小损失，而不是不断增加损失。我认为我们在两个方面有所不同。

So the classic example there is I've invested money in some project, it's a failing venture, it becomes clear to me that it's almost certainly a failing venture. But I don't want to feel bad about myself that I have thrown all of this money after what is actually a bad idea. And I hold on to this almost irrational hope that if I just keep throwing more resources at this, that maybe it's gonna turn around and turn into a success. So that's a case where the smart thing to do would be to just walk away to abandon that goal and take your minimal losses instead of adding more and more to those losses. So I think we're a little bit different in two ways.

对我们来说，问题从来不是是否应该完全放弃目标。在我描述的研究中，人们会达到最终状态。他们会完成第二项研究。如果你在写那篇论文，你不会放弃这个项目。你最终会有一个草稿的最终版本。

So for us, the question is never whether you should abandon your goal altogether. So in the study I described, people are going to make it to that end state. They're gonna make it to the second study. If you're writing that paper, you're not gonna just give up on the project. You're eventually going to have a a final version of that draft.

但问题是，你具体要如何达到目标？在实现最终状态的过程中，你会采取哪些手段，会有多大的灵活性？我认为这是与沉没成本谬误和承诺升级的一个区别，后者通常是关于是否应该放弃目标。而对我们来说，更多的是关于采取什么正确的手段来实现目标或最终状态。另一个区别是，承诺升级通常基于你不想接受过去可能犯了错误，你是个糟糕的决策者这一想法。

But the question is, how exactly are you going to get there? And what and how flexible are you going to be in the means that you take to make it to that end state? So I think that's one difference in terms of sunk cost fallacy and escalation of commitment is often about should you abandon a goal. And for us, it's more about what's the right means to take to get to that goal or end state. I think the other difference is escalation of commitment is often premised on the idea that you don't want to accept that maybe in the past you made a mistake, you are a bad decision maker.

在设计我们的研究时，我们总是确保参与者对其最初的行为承担最小或没有责任。在虚拟世界导航的研究中，当他们第一次看到自己的路线时，他们甚至没有看到有第二条可能的路径。我们故意这样设置。或者在我们后期的一些研究中，我们会先分配人们以某种方式完成任务，然后给他们中途返回的选项。这样人们就不会想，哦，我不想承认自己一开始处理这个任务的方式不够聪明。

When we designed our studies, we always did so in a way that our participants would take minimal or no responsibility for their initial course of action. So in the study where they navigated a virtual world, when they first saw where they were going, they didn't even see there was a second possible pathway to go. We set it up that way intentionally. Or in some of our later studies, we would just assign people to complete a task in a certain way first, and then give them an option to double back down the road. So there is no potential for people to think, oh, I don't wanna admit to myself that I wasn't very smart in how I approach this task to begin with.

因此，即使我们排除了个人责任的可能性，人们仍然不愿意中途返回。

And so even when we take that potential for personal responsibility out of the picture, people still are unwilling to double back.

噢，我太喜欢这个了。而且即使在不涉及保全面子的情况下，比如你本应从公寓楼右边出去却走了左边，这种效应依然存在。是的，你仍能看到这种影响真的很棒。

Oh, I love that. And the fact that it's still present even when it's not about saving face, as in the case of you walking left when you should have walked right out of your apartment building. Yeah. And you still see the effect is really nice.

没错。在很多情况下，我们可能确实要对最初的行为路线负责，但我们已经证明，这并不是导致折返厌恶的必要因素。

Exactly. And there are a lot of cases where we probably are responsible for our initial course of action, but we've shown that that's not a necessary ingredient for doubling back aversion.

所以我想从讨论这种偏见和我们人类操作系统的问题，转向思考一些解决方案。我知道听众们会非常感兴趣，既然他们明白了折返厌恶是个问题并可能导致糟糕决策，他们该如何改进。对于决策者意识到这点后如何最好地避免折返厌恶，你有什么建议吗？

So I wanna turn from talking about this bias and all the problems with our human operating system to actually thinking a little bit about solutions. So I know our listeners will be really interested in how now that they understand the doubling back aversion is a problem and can lead them to make bad decisions, they might be able to improve. Do you have recommendations for how decision makers can best avoid doubling back aversion now that they're aware of it?

我认为作为研究者，我们试图探究偏见产生的原因之一，通常是因为解决方案往往就藏在这些原因之中。需要说明的是，我们并未直接测试这些解决方案——那是未来的工作。但基于'努力浪费规避'的概念，即人们不愿回头看自己过去的努力并承认在某些方式上浪费了时间，我认为人们需要重新定义'浪费'对自身的含义。

So I think one of the main reasons why as researchers, we try to study why biases happen is usually it's in those why answers that the solutions hopefully naturally arise. So as a caveat, I'll say we didn't directly test these solutions. That's for our future work. But building on that idea of waste diversion, that people really don't wanna look back at their past efforts and say that they have engaged in wasteful efforts, that they have wasted their time on a certain means. I think people have to redefine for themselves what waste means.

早前我说过，人们在定义浪费时过于后视。我认为我们必须更前瞻性地思考浪费问题。或许我们不愿折返是因为必须承认自己为某个项目投入了大量本不必要的努力。但真正该问的是：我们是要继续前进，在同一条路上浪费更多时间，还是选择更高效的路径——即使这意味着要回顾过去，并对当时的所有作为不完全满意。这关联到一个更广泛的命题：我们都必须更好地接受过去不可更改，但未来如何生活完全掌握在我们手中。

Earlier, I said that people are very backward focused in defining waste. I think we have to be better at being forward focused and thinking about waste as well. So maybe we don't wanna double back because we're gonna have to admit to ourselves that we put in a lot of effort to a project that maybe we didn't have to and in that particular way. But what we need to be asking ourselves is, do we wanna proceed forward and waste more time on the same route, or do we wanna take a more efficient route even if that requires us to look to our past and maybe not feel perfectly great about everything we had done at that point. It's related to the broader theme that we all have to be better at accepting that the past may be fixed, but we have full potential to change how we live our lives in the future.

如果我们能更多采用这种未来导向的思维，我认为这就是避免折返厌恶的第一步。

And if we can adopt more of that future orientation, I think that's the first step in avoiding doubling back aversion.

说得太好了。这个回答非常有帮助。非常感谢你克莱顿，今天抽空和我讨论这项迷人的研究，也感谢你进行这项迷人的研究。我收获了很多乐趣，也学到了很多，听众们也是。真的非常感谢你的时间。

I love that. That's a really helpful answer. Thank you so much, Clayton, for taking the time to talk to me today about this fascinating research and for doing this fascinating research. I've had such fun, and I know that I've learned a lot and our listeners have too. So really appreciate your time.

非常感谢，凯蒂。和你交谈总是很愉快。

Thanks so much, Katie. Always fun to talk to you.

克莱顿·克里彻是加州大学伯克利分校哈斯商学院的市场营销、认知科学和心理学教授。您可以在我们的节目说明和schwab.com/choiceology上找到他与克里斯汀·赵合著的论文《折返厌恶：一种通过撤销进展来避免进步的心理》的链接。嘉信理财的播客涵盖从行为经济学到市场新闻再到高尔夫等各种主题。查找所有播客的最直接方式是访问schwab.com/podcasts。折返厌恶是一种我们可能都有共鸣的偏见。

Clayton Critcher is a professor of marketing, cognitive science, and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business. You can find a link to his paper coauthored with Christine Cho called doubling back aversion, a reluctance to make progress by undoing it, in our show notes and at schwab.com/choiceology. Schwab podcasts cover a wide variety of topics from behavioral economics to market news to golf. The most direct route to find them all is by visiting schwab.com/podcasts. Doubling back aversion is a bias that we can probably all relate to.

对我而言，这让我想起几年前写书时的经历，每次写完一章初稿却发现质量不佳时的痛苦。正确的选择往往是撕掉重写。但我不可避免地会浪费数小时修改糟糕的草稿，最终才不得不折返重来。不过随着写作进程的深入，我越来越擅长所谓的'杀死宠儿'。到最后，花一天写完一章草稿，第二天早上决心全部删除变得容易多了。

For me, it brings up memories of writing a book several years ago and the pain I experienced every time I wrote a first draft of a chapter, only to realize it wasn't very good. The right choice was often to rip it up and start again. But I inevitably wasted hours tinkering with a bad draft before finally doubling back. The deeper I got into the book writing process, though, the better I got at, quote, killing my darlings, as the expression goes. By the end, it was much easier to spend a day writing a draft of a chapter and resolve myself the next morning to delete it all.

我怀疑通过练习和自我觉察，我们都能更好地克服折返厌恶。或许只需要多留意自己何时可能正经历这种心理。也许你去年做的投资组合调整事后看来并不合理，或者你从浴室拆掉的洗手盆其实比新装的更好看。又或许是工作中那份确实需要推倒重来、以全新视角开始的报告。道理是相同的。

My suspicion is that with practice and self awareness, we can all get better at overcoming the aversion to doubling back. We probably just need to pay a bit more attention to when we might be experiencing it. Maybe a portfolio adjustment you made last year just doesn't make sense in hindsight, or the sink you tore out of your bathroom actually looked better than the one you installed. Or maybe it's a report at work that you really need to scrap and start on with fresh eyes. The point is the same.

一旦认识到折返厌恶，你就能以'退步实为最佳前进方式'的觉悟面对这些时刻。您正在收听的是嘉信理财原创播客《选择心理学》。如果喜欢本节目，我们将非常感激您在苹果播客留下评论，在Spotify评分，或在任何收听平台反馈。您也可以在喜爱的播客应用中免费订阅。若想获取更多关于改善决策的洞见，可订购我的著作《如何改变》，或在Substack订阅我的月度通讯《米尔克曼快递》。

Once you recognize doubling back aversion, you can approach these moments with the awareness that going backwards is often the best way forward. You've been listening to Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. If you've enjoyed the show, we'd be really grateful if you'd leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, a rating on Spotify, or feedback wherever you listen. You can also follow us for free in your favorite podcasting app. And if you want more of the kinds of insights we bring you on choiceology about how to improve your decisions, you can order my book, How to Change, or sign up for my monthly newsletter, Milkman Delivers, on Substack.

下期节目，我将对话印第安纳大学心理与脑科学教授玛丽·墨菲，探讨固定型思维与成长型思维的区别，以及如何培养成长文化。我是凯蒂·米尔克曼博士，下次再会。

Next time, I'll speak with Indiana University professor of psychological and brain sciences, Mary Murphy, about the distinction between a fixed and a growth mindset and what it takes to foster a culture of growth. I'm doctor Katie Milkman. Talk to you soon.

重要声明详见节目说明或访问schwab.com/podcast。

For important disclosures, see the show notes or visit schwab.com/podcast.