Annie Duke – Wanna Bet? - [Invest Like the Best, EP.125]

他做了一件完全出人意料的事。

He does something super duper unexpected.

大家都以为他会把球交给跑卫马肖恩·林奇，他却下令传球。

He calls for a pass play when everybody's expecting him to hand the ball off to Marshawn Lynch, who's the running back.

球被拦截了。

The pass is intercepted.

所有人都不约而同地犯了结果导向的错误。

And universally, everybody does this resulting thing.

他们说：‘拦截太糟糕了。',

They're like, An interception is terrible.

我看得出这球的质量到底怎么样。

I can see what the quality of that was.

于是大家都说：‘这简直是史上最蠢的决定。',

So they all say, This is the stupidest decision ever.

如果我们回头想想，他当时到底知道些什么？

So if we go back and we think, Well, what did he know?

他当时不知道什么呢？

What didn't he know?

当时可能有哪些结果？

What were the different possible outcomes?

这些结果各自发生的概率是多少？

What were the percentage of those outcomes?

因为只有知道这些，我们才能真正判断这个决定是不是明智的。

Because we know that that's the stuff you need to know in order to really know whether it was a good decision.

虽然还有其他可能的结果，但最关键的三个是达阵、传球未完成和被抄截。

There's a lot of other outcomes in these, but the three main outcomes of the past that we would care about would be touchdown, incomplete, and interception.

当然还有掉球、被擒抱这些情况，但不管要不要把球交给马肖恩·林奇，这些都差不多。

And obviously there's things like fumble and sack and whatever, but those are kind of the same either way, whether you hand it off to Marshall Lynch or not.

所以我们先暂时忽略它们，简化一下分析。

So let's just ignore those for a second to simplify.

我们唯一能判断这个决定好坏的方式，就是搞清楚被抄截这个结果实际发生的频率。

So here's what we know is that the only way, literally the only way that we know whether this is a good decision or not, is to understand how often the outcome, which is interception occurs.

如果我们不知道这一点，其实就很难判断这个决策的质量如何。

And if we don't know that, we don't really know a lot about what the decision quality is.

问题是，如果你去问别人，他们往往会说：我不知道，我根本没想过这个问题。

The thing is that if I go around and I ask people, they're like, I don't know, I don't have like, didn't even think about that.

我压根没意识到这还值得去考虑。

I didn't know that was a thing I should be thinking about.

看起来这明显是个糟糕的决定，因为最终成了抄截。

It's really obvious that it was a bad decision because it ended in interception.

但如果你真去问自己这个问题，答案其实是12%左右，这时候你就会发现，等等，也许这决策也没那么糟。

So if you ask yourself that question, the answer there is between 12%, it starts to become pretty clear that, oh, wait a minute, maybe that wasn't such a bad decision after all.

当然，如果传出了达阵，我们都知道会发生什么——大家会说他太厉害了，但其实这背后也是同样的逻辑。

So you can walk through it, obviously a touchdown, we know what happens, he's a genius, which is also resulting by the way.

所以，仅仅因为达阵成功就夸他是天才，这其实和刚才的情况一样荒谬。

So that's just as bad if just because a touchdown is scored, they say he's a genius.

我觉得如果每个人都能停下来想一想，达阵之后的新闻头条会是什么样子？

And I think if everybody takes a second to think, okay, what do the headlines look like if it's a touchdown?

我觉得每个人都会觉得，没错，比尔契克就是厉害，这正是他这么出色的原因。

I think everybody can feel like, yeah, Belichick Belichick, this is why he's so great.

他从绝境中抢下了第五个超级碗冠军。

He stole the fifth Super Bowl from the jaws of defeat.

瞧瞧，汤姆·格拉迪又坐在场上哭了。

Oh, look, Tom Grady was sitting on the field crying again.

真让人难过。

So sad.

所以很明显，他真是个天才。

So that obviously, he's a genius.

有意思的是，如果传球没接住，就会发生一件非常关键的事——计时钟停了。

Now what's interesting is in the case that the ball is incomplete, a really important thing happens, which is the clock stops.

而且停得特别快。

And it stops really fast.

所以我们知道，这其实对他们来说并不是坏结果，因为钟停得够快，他们还能再打两回合。

So we know that that's actually not a bad outcome for them because the clock stops fast enough for them to still get two plays.

所以这对他们来说其实是个不错的结果。

So that's kind of a really good thing for them.

也就是说，他们没达阵也没关系？

So it's like, yeah, do they not score a touchdown?

对，但在他们能接受的好结果里，这完全算不上什么。

No, but it's in the world of good outcomes for them.

然后还有一到两成的概率，球会被抄截。

And then you have this like one to 2% chance that the ball gets intercepted.

单凭这一点，你就能看出结果导向思维有多强了。

So just on that basis alone, you can see what the power of resulting does.

这事儿看起来这么明显，可居然没人问过。

It seems so obvious that nobody even asked that question.

我倒想问问大家，别去看内特·西尔弗的网站，那儿的数学分析确实挺厉害。

I challenge people to go I mean, don't look at Nate Silver's site because you'll see some pretty good math there.

但你要是去翻《今日美国》或者《华盛顿邮报》那些媒体，看看星期一他们怎么骂彼得·卡罗尔是傻瓜，你根本找不到这个数据。

But if you look at USA Today and the Washington Post and whatever, look at that Monday, what people were saying as they were declaring that Pete Carroll was an idiot, and you will not find that statistic in there anywhere.

为什么？

Why?

因为大家都觉得，这还用说吗？

Because people are like, Well, it's obvious.

我干嘛非得知道这个？

Why would I need to know that?

但恰恰就是你需要知道的。

But that's exactly the thing you need to know.

问题是，这太复杂了。

But the problem is it's so complicated.

所以这是一种简化的方法。

So this is a way to simplify.

结果导向本质上是一种简化，但这种情境下，根本不该简化。

So resulting is basically a simplification, but this isn't a place that you actually, it's not a good place for simplifying.

我特别欣赏你工作中那些简单的启发式方法和问题，当然，最出名的、大家都广为引用的，就是‘要不要打个赌’。

One of my favorite things about your work is these simplifying little heuristics and questions that you can ask, and obviously the famous one that everyone has glommed onto, rightfully so, is Wanna Bet.

因为它逼着你去考虑各种可能性，然后根据预期结果来做决定，而不是非黑即白地思考。

Because it forces you to think about the various probabilities and then base your decision based on expected outcome versus black and white type thinking.

而是去看待一系列的概率，而不是一味地认为事情非确定不可。

So a range of probabilities instead of just being a deterministic person about it.

另一个我觉得特别有意思的是这个问题：我怎么知道的？

The other one that I found really interesting in there is this question of how do I know?

如果决策的根本是信念——也就是你自以为了解的世界信息，我很想听听你对这个问题的深入解读，因为它太棒了。

If the base level of the anatomy of a decision is beliefs, which is like the information you think you have about the world, I'd love you to expand on that question, because it's amazing.

如果你开始用这个问题反观自己，当你有一个信念时，问自己：我怎么知道的？

If you start to turn that lens on yourself, where you've got a belief, and you start to ask the question, how do I know?

很多东西很快就会崩塌。

Things can fall apart pretty quickly.

在质疑自己信念的背后，还有哪些东西？

What else is behind that question skeptical about your own beliefs?

首先，当你对别人说‘你敢打个赌吗？’的时候，背后其实藏着这样一个想法：

Well, first of all, think at the base of that is this idea of when you say to somebody, do you want to bet?

我觉得现在有两个方面逐渐清晰起来了。

I think there's two things that are coming into focus.

第一点是，结果里有多少是运气成分。

Thing number one is how much luck is gonna be in the outcome.

所以当你在考虑要不要打赌某件事会发生时，

So if you're thinking about, do you wanna bet on that something is going to occur?

你就会开始想：我不确定。

They start to think, I don't know.

比如，我得想想运气到底占多大分量？可能的结果有哪些？

Like, let me think about how much luck Like, what's the range of outcomes?

这些结果出现的概率有多大？

Like how common are those gonna be?

这样一来，不确定性就浮出水面了，运气的影响也变得明显了。

So it actually causes that uncertainty to bubble to the surface, that influence of luck to bubble to the surface.

但另一点是，它让你开始追问：我凭什么这么确定？

But the other thing it does is it gets you to start thinking about why do I know what I know?

你对这个有多确定？

How well do I know it?

你到底有多有把握？

Like how sure am I?

因为这其实正是别人在挑战你的地方。

Because that's really kind of what someone's challenging you to.

我觉得，‘打个赌’这个做法特别特别好，尤其当我们想弄清楚自己到底知道多少、对所知内容有多自信的时候——我们其实常常高估了自己对事情的了解。

And one of the things I think that wanna bet does really, really, really well, if we think about how do we figure out what our own state of knowledge is, how confident we are in what we know, is that we know that when we're thinking about our own knowledge and sort of what we see in the world that we're very overconfident about the things that we know.

这是因为我们总是从自己的角度去看世界。

And that's because we're looking at the world from the inside out.

所以当我跟你提出‘打个赌’的时候，其实是逼你跳出自己的视角，从外部来看。

So when I say wanna bet to you, I actually force you into the outside view.

因为一听到这话，你马上就会想——等等，安妮知道些什么是我没注意到的？（你可以纠正我，如果我说得不对）

Because immediately, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, one of the questions you say is, What does Annie know that I don't know?

这本质上就是在提醒你：你凭什么相信自己知道的那些事？

So it's essentially like a cue to first of all, why do you know the things that you know?

于是你就开始仔细梳理一下，我有什么证据支持这个想法？

So you start to sort of go through some vetting, like what's the evidence that I have for the belief?

我是在哪儿学到这个的？

Where did I learn it?

我怎么去研究过它？

How have I researched it?

但同时，它也会把你拉到一个更客观的视角里。

But then it also starts to pull you into the outside view.

那个想和我打赌的人，他知道些什么是我所不知道的？

What does the person who wants to bet against me know that I don't know?

你开始问自己：我哪里错了，而不是我为什么是对的。

You start asking why am I wrong instead of why am I right?

这一点其实特别关键。

That's kind of really important.

你还会想，还有哪些其他可能性是成立的？

And you think like, what are other things that might be true?

比如说结果方面，如果我们谈的是彼得·卡罗尔那个事，你说这决策真是蠢透了。

Or in the case of outcomes, if we were talking about the Pete Carroll thing, and you said, what an idiotic decision.

我说，你敢不敢打个赌？

And I said, do you want to bet?

你这时候就会开始想，还有没有其他可能的结果？

One of the things that you would do is you would start thinking, well, what are the other ways it could turn out?

难道就只有这一种结果吗？

Was that the only way it could have turned out?

你可能会问自己，那种情况下被抄截的概率到底有多大？

You might ask yourself, how often does an interception happen there?

于是你就开始琢磨，可能的结果有哪些，各自的概率又是多少。

So you start to say to yourself like, well, what's the range of outcomes and kind of what's the probability?

所以我们想做的，是不用每次都问自己‘你敢不敢打个赌’，就能意识到这一点。

So what we wanna do is recognize without always saying to ourselves, do want to bet?

你敢不敢打个赌？

Do you want to bet?

你愿意打个赌吗？

Do you want to bet?

我们该怎么培养良好的思维方式，让自己的信念尽可能靠谱呢？

How do we create good habits of mind around making sure that our beliefs are kind of as good as possible?

所以我们得做两件事。

So there's two things that we want to do.

我们要做一次审查。

We want to audit.

如果我们想想自己所知道的那些东西，就得时不时地检视一下它们。

If we think about the box of stuff we know, we want to be doing some auditing of that.

也就是说，我为什么相信这个？

So that's the, why do I know this?

我对它有多大的把握？

How sure am I of it?

就是这类问题。

Those kinds of questions.

所以这其实就是一种内部审查。

So that's kind of doing an internal audit.

但同时，我们还得想清楚，怎么把那些我不懂的东西，尽可能转化成我懂的东西。

But then we also want to figure out sort of what's the best way to extract stuff out of that box of things I don't know into things I do know.

而且在这个过程中，还要弄明白：怎么最大限度地发现那些我连自己都不知道不知道的东西。

And along with that to say, how do I actually extract the maximum stuff that I don't know that I don't know?

因为这件事真的特别重要。

Because that's actually really important to do.

那具体该怎么做呢？

So how do you do that?

首先，你得真正有动力去主动寻找答案。

Well, the first thing is you get focused on wanting to go find the information out.

这是第一步。

So that's number one.

真正推动你去做的，是那种‘要不要打个赌’的念头，这其实是个关键提示。

And the actual interesting thing that sort of spurs you to do that, and the hint is from wanna bet.

我说‘打个赌’的时候，你会开始想可能的结果有哪些，每种结果发生的概率有多大。

If I say wanna bet, it makes you start thinking about what's the range of outcomes and how often do they occur.

你要做到这一点，就得去审视自己的知识边界，然后可能会发现一些你原本没意识到自己不知道的东西。

Now notice for you to do that, you have to go think about your knowledge, and then you might want to find some things out that you realize that you don't know.

只要去想一想，事情其实有无数种可能的走向，而每一种走向都有其发生的可能性，这个过程本身就很有意义。

So just the act of sort of thinking about, there's always a lot of ways that things can turn out, and each of those ways has some probability of occurring.

我先试着估算一下可能的范围，再试着判断每种情况发生的概率——这种概率不一定是精确数字，也可能是一个区间。

And if I start to, first of all, a stab at figuring out the range, and then second of all, a stab at figuring out what the likelihood is, which may not be an exact number, it might be a range.

有时候，我知道离婚率是百分之五十。

Sometimes it would be like, I know the divorce rate is fifty percent.

有时候，我并不清楚确切的离婚率，但大概在百分之四十到六十之间。

Sometimes it might be, I don't know the exact divorce rate, but it's somewhere between forty percent and sixty percent.

光是做这种估算，就会促使你进行一次内在的审查。

Just the act of doing that starts to make you do these internal audits.

它还会推动你去主动寻找能帮助你做判断的信息。

And it makes you try to go find information that would inform that process.

所以这是第一点。

So that's number one.

这就像推你一把，让你去这么做。

That's like the kick in the butt to get you to go do that.

接下来第二点是，我只了解我知道的东西。

And then the second thing that you have to do is figure out, I only know what I know.

我知道，我在看待这个世界时，总会带有偏见。

And I know that I am going to be processing the world in a way that is biased.

不管我多努力，也许能稍微改进一点，但我始终会用支持自己信念的方式去思考。

No matter how hard I try, I might get a little bit better at it, but I am always going to be reasoning in a way that's gonna support the beliefs that I have.

我会用一种让结果显得合理的逻辑去推理。

I'm gonna be reasoning in a way that makes outcomes make sense.

一旦我知道了结果，就很难摆脱它的影响。

Once I know an outcome, it's very hard for me to get out from under the shadow of it.

你可以告诉我这对你是不是这样，但我知道皮特·卡罗尔的数学原理。

So you can tell me like if this is true for you, but I know the math of the Pete Carroll.

我对此非常清楚。

I know it very well.

我记得应该是今年世界大赛的第四场。

I know that in I think it was game four of this year's world series.

第七局换下投手完全没问题。

It was totally fine to pull the pitcher in the seventh inning.

从数学角度上，我完全明白。

I know it mathematically.

但如果我要诚实地面对自己的感受，我实际的情绪反应是什么？

And yet, if I really had to be honest with myself, like, what's my emotional reaction to it?

皮特·卡罗尔真是个傻瓜。

Pete Carroll's an idiot.

既然我已经研究过，也算过数据了，我

So given that I know that like I've looked at it, I've done the math, I

你可是亲自写过这本书的。

wrote it You literally wrote the book.

是的。

Yeah.

但在我脑子里某个地方，还是有个声音在说：皮特·卡罗尔是个傻瓜。

Still in my head somewhere, there's a voice going, Pete Carroll's an idiot.

皮特·卡罗尔是个傻瓜。

Pete Carroll's an idiot.

既然我在明明做过分析、算过数据的情况下还会这样，那想想有多少情况我们根本没意识到自己在这样想。

So if I can do that in a situation where I've actually done the work, work, imagine how much this is happening without it being in view.

你根本不知道自己有多努力地去调整思路，只为让结果看起来合理。

And you don't even know how much you are reasoning toward the outcome to make the outcome make sense.

为那些你本来就相信的东西找理由。

Reasoning toward the things that you already believe.

这就是动机性推理——我们以为自己在客观地思考，好形成最准确的看法。

So that is motivated reasoning where we think that we objective way in order to construct the most accurate beliefs.

但实际发生的是，我们脑子里有一堆固有信念，它们在两种方式上左右着我们处理信息的过程。

But what's actually happening is we have all these beliefs and they're determining how we process information in kind of two ways.

首先，我们更容易注意到那些符合我们观点的信息。

The first is that basically we pay attention to stuff that agrees with us.

其次，当我们遇到与自己观点相左的信息时，总能巧妙地编个故事，要么贬低它，要么拆解它，最后让它看起来还是支持我们的立场。

And secondly, when we do have information that disagrees with us, we're very good at spinning a story, either to discredit it or to actually slice and dice it to actually agree with us.

我们处理信息是为了维护自己的信念，而不是为了修正它们。

So we process information to support our beliefs, not process information to calibrate our beliefs.

这就像书里说的那句‘耳听为实’的想法。

This is the kind of like hearing is believing idea from the book.

对，就是这样。

Right, exactly.

这种动机性推理本质上是循环的。

So that's general, this motivated reasoning is very circular.

我们其实知道，自己总会陷入这种模式。

We know that we're going to fall into this.

我们甚至可以想想‘结果导向’这个问题——作为人类，我们天生受不了不确定性。

And we can think about that even just in terms of resulting, which is, as human beings, comfortable with uncertainty.

我们不太能接受随机性。

We're not very comfortable with randomness.

我们希望结果都有道理。

We want outcomes to make sense.

我们不愿意承认，好决定也可能带来坏结果。

We don't want to think that bad things can happen to our good decisions.

那会让人很难受。

That makes us sad.

我们也不愿想，好事居然是个糟糕的决定带来的。

We don't want to think that if a good thing happened, it was a bad decision.

那简直让人特别沮丧。

That us That would make us super sad.

所以我们总在绕圈子找理由。

And so we're always doing this circular reasoning.

如果我明白这一点，就知道光靠自己，我在这上面很难做得好。

So if I know that, then I know that on my own, I'm going to be not so great at this.

所以我现在想改进的是，事后复盘这件事我要做得更好。

So one of the things is I'm saying, I want to be better at these post outcome reviews.

我想更清楚地弄明白事情为什么会发生，这样我才能下注下得更准。

I wanna be better at figuring out why things happened so that I could win more bets.

这其实就是我们要玩的游戏，对吧？

That's the game here, right?

这个游戏的核心就是准确性。

The game is like accuracy.

谁对世界的理解最准确，谁在下注时就能赢。

The person who has the most accurate beliefs about the world is gonna win in a betting situation.

所以现在，这就是我们要玩的游戏。

So this is now the game.

那么，面对结果的时候，我该怎么处理？

So how am I after outcomes?

我怎样才能形成对世界最准确的认知？

How do I create the most accurate view of the world?

在做决定的过程中，我该怎么才能做出最好的判断，真正看清各种可能的结果呢？

How when I'm in the process of trying to decide, do I make the best decision and actually have the best view of what the possible outcomes are?

这些结果发生的概率有多大？

How often they'll occur?

我知道光靠我自己是做不到的。

And I know I can't do that on my own.

原来如此。

Oh, okay.

我可以借助别人的意见。

I can use other people.

因为我想到自己不知道的那些事，别人恰恰知道一些我不了解的信息。

Because when I think about the box of things I don't know, other people know stuff that I don't know.

当我考虑事情还有哪些其他可能的发展时，你可能会想到和我不一样的情况。

When I think about what are other ways that things might turn out, you might have a different idea than I do.

当我思考这些情况发生的频率时，你的看法也可能和我不一样。

When I think about how often might those things turn out, well, you might have a different view than I do.

你看待世界的方式跟我完全不同。

You just have a different perspective on the world than I do.

如果我跟你聊，你可能会告诉我一些我知道自己需要听但还没想到的事。

And if I were talking to you, there would be things that you might tell me that I knew that I needed you to tell me.

但你脑子里可能还有很多对我有用的信息，只是我自己根本没意识到这些信息有价值。

But there's probably a lot of stuff living in your head that would be useful to me, but I don't know it's useful to me.

我也希望把这些东西从你脑子里挖出来。

And I'd like to get those out of your head as well.

那我们该怎么做到这一点呢？

So how do we do that?

大概有三个主要方法。

So there's kind of three main tacks.

第一个方法是多跟别人交流，说话的时候别回避不确定性。

Tack number one is to talk to other people, including uncertainty in the way that you talk.

比如说，如果我说：‘很明显，特朗普2020年选举肯定会输。'

So if I say something like, let's say that I say, obviously, Trump's gonna lose the election in 2020.

如果你对这件事有别的看法，那我根本没给你留任何空间来和我讨论。

If you have other ideas about that, I haven't left any room for us to really have a conversation about it.

要么我们就会为此争起来，因为我把这事说得板上钉钉。

Either we're gonna get in a battle about it because I've declared that this thing is true 100%.

结果就是我只会对你吼一句‘你错了，你真蠢’，根本谈不上什么真正的交流。

So either I'm gonna just get out of you like, Well, you're wrong and you're an idiot, and we're not actually gonna have a real exchange.

或者在社交场合，你干脆就不吭声了。

Or in a cocktail party situation, you might not even speak up.

你其实可能和我看法不一样，但我因为说得太绝对，就失去了了解你观点的机会。

And you might have a different view than I do, and I now don't have the opportunity to learn that because I have declared something with certainty.

我根本没留余地，让你能理性地跟我聊聊，为什么你看待世界的方式和我不一样。

I haven't left the door open for us to have a rational exchange of information about why you might view the world differently than I do.

但如果我换种说法，比如：‘我其实挺感兴趣的，因为我看到很多说法，对特朗普2020年能否胜选，大家意见不一。’

But if I were to express it instead as, yeah, I'm kind of interested because I've seen a lot of stuff and I see different opinions about what the likelihood that Trump will win in 2020 is.

而且我自己也拿不准。

And I'm just not really sure.

我觉得他可能是劣势一方，但说不定支持率有百分之四十七。

I think he's probably an underdog, but maybe he's like 47%.

现在我们之间没有分歧了。

Now that we're not having a disagreement.

那现在分歧在哪呢？

Where's the disagreement now?

这下我给你开了门，你可以跟我分享你对这件事的各种看法了。

So I've now let the door open for you to now start offering me up a whole bunch of things that you think about it.

比如你可以讲，我觉得实际比例更高，而你不会觉得我否定你，因为我根本没说谁对谁错。

You could say for example, well, I actually think the percentage is higher, and you haven't told me I'm wrong because I didn't declare right or wrong in the first place.

你可以说，我觉得问题出在这些地方。

You can say like, I think these are the mistakes.

我觉得这得看是哪位候选人。

I think it depends on which candidate.

这下我们真能好好聊聊了。

Now all of a sudden, you're gonna have a conversation with me about it.

你可以在任何事情上都这么做。

And you can do this in anything.

别直接说，我知道这是投资股市的正确策略。

Don't declare, I know this is the right strategy for investing in the stock market.

你可以说，我目前只是在观察它。

Be like, Well, I'm sort of looking at it.

表达不确定的方式其实有很多。

There's all sorts of different ways that you can express uncertainty.

所以我可以说，我觉得走这条路去机场挺不错的。

So I can say, I think this is a really good route to take to the airport.

我对这个有百分之七十六的把握。

I'm like 76% on that.

我平时就这么做的。

I do this.

我写书的时候，会跟编辑说：我周一能把下一章交给你，大概有百分之五十四的把握。

When I'm writing a book, I'll say to my editor, I think that I'm going to have the next chapter to you on Monday, 54% of the time.

到了周五，大概就有92%的把握了。

By Friday, you know, it'll be 92% of the time.

她还告诉我，她其实特别喜欢这样，因为这能很好地管理预期。

And she actually has told me back that she actually really enjoys that because it's really good expectation setting.

这让她有机会问清楚，为什么周一只有54%。

It gives her an opportunity to probe as to why Monday is 54%.

她能不能在哪些地方帮帮我，让进度快一点？

Could she support me in some way that could like speed it up?

那为什么周五就只有92%呢？

Why is Friday only 92%?

周五之后又会怎么样？

What's gonna happen after Friday?

这样其实给人们留出了空间，可以自由地表达不确定性。

But it just kind of like it gives people room to do this.

所以这算是第一个策略。

So that's kind of strategy number one.

另外一件事你可以做的是，我读过一篇观点文章。

Another thing that you can do is I read this opinion piece.

我特别想听听你对这篇文章的看法，但我想先说明一下，这是我目前唯一读过的相关文章。

I'm really interested in what you have to say about it, but I just want to let you know it's the only thing I've read on the topic.

所以我现在做的就是，我表达了自己的看法。

So now what I've done is I said, I have an opinion about it.

这就是我的想法，但我想让你知道，这个观点其实没什么依据，这样你也明白，我对自己的看法其实不太确定。

Like, here's what I think about it, but I just want you to know it's not that well informed of a decision, which now lets you know that I'm pretty uncertain about what my opinion is.

我只是在寻找更多信息。

And I'm just looking for information.

现在我这样说话，更容易从你那里获取有价值的信息。

Now, I'm just speaking in a way that's more likely to be a good information extractor out of your head.

还有一点我觉得特别重要，就是要想真正擅长这一块——比如，我该怎么思考世界为什么是这样？

The other thing I think that's really important to understand is that in order to be really good at this knowledge piece, like how do I think about why the world is the way it is?

我该怎么理解自己的经历？

How do I process my experience?

我该怎么从中学习？

How do I learn from it?

我该怎么判断什么才是一个好的决定？

How do I think about what a good decision is?

结果可能会怎样？

What the outcomes might be?

我得学会怎么从别人那里获得反馈。

I have to be really good at how do I get feedback from people.

获取别人反馈时最重要的一点是，他们和你一样有偏见，也会像你一样用信念去推理，像你一样努力让结果看起来合理。

And the number one thing to understand about getting feedback from people is that they have the same bias as you do, and they will reason toward beliefs the same way that you do, and they will reason to make outcomes make sense the same way that you do.

所以你得明白，你的信念会以一种很糟糕的方式传染给别人。

So, it is really important to understand that your beliefs are infectious in a bad way.

它们具有传染性。

They are contagious.

会感染到对方。

They infect the other person.

而世界实际发生的结果，也会反过来影响整个思考过程。

And that the way that the world has actually turned out will also infect the process.

这不只是你和别人交流的问题，而是任何一群人聚在一起都会这样。

And that it's not just you talking to other people, but it's anybody who gets in a room together.

他们会彼此传染各自的信念。

They're going to start to infect each other with their beliefs.

他们还会彼此传染对结果的看法。

They are going to start to infect each other with the outcome.

比如说，如果我在复盘一个过去的决定，那最好能听听你的意见。

So, for example, if I am deconstructing a past decision, it would be really good if I am trying to get your opinion on it.

如果我只把决策过程讲到必须做决定的那一刻为止。

If I sort of work through the decision only up to the point that I needed to decide.

比如我想问：你觉得这个橄榄球战术怎么样？

For example, if I'm trying to say, Hey, do you think this is a good play in football?

我会说：当时我在一码线，二档进攻，只剩一次暂停，可以选择交给马什恩·林奇冲球，或者传球。

I would say, Well, I was on the one yard line and it was second down and I only had one time out and I could hand it off to Marshawn Lynch or I could throw it.

我当时落后四分，必须达阵得分。

I was down by four, I needed to score a touchdown.

显然时间不多了，只剩一次暂停。

Obviously I don't have a lot of time and I only have one time out.

所以我就想了这些可能性。

So here's what I considered.

首先，我可以干脆什么都不说，不让你知道我的想法。

Well, first of all, I could stop there and not even tell you anything that I considered or I believe.

那样的话，效果应该不错。

So that would be pretty good.

你觉得怎么样？

What do you think?

这样一来，我就完全没有把自己的观点强加给你。

So now I'm not infecting you with my beliefs at all.

然后我就能真正听到你的看法。

And now I get what you think.

但也许你得了解一些相关的数据。

But maybe you need to know some of the math.

你可能不知道这一点。

Maybe you don't know that.

所以我当时的想法是，我特别想把球交给马肖恩·林奇两次。

So what I would tell you then is, so I really felt like I wanted to get the ball to Marshawn Lynch twice.

我在考虑的时候想到，如果第一次把球交给他，他没得分，时间就消耗得差不多了。

And as I was thinking about that, I thought, well, if I hand it off to Marshawn Lynch the first time and he doesn't score, a ton of time has run off the clock.

那我就得叫暂停。

So I have to call a time out.

然后再交一次球给他，那就是最后一攻了。

Then I hand it off to Marshawn Lynch again, that's the last play.

于是我想到，也许我应该传球。

So then I thought, well, maybe I should pass.

因为如果传球没接住，时间会停，我还能再把球交给马肖恩·林奇。

Because if I pass and it's incomplete, the clock stops, I can get it up to Marshawn Lynch again.

你觉得呢？

What do you think?

注意啊，我还没告诉你最后结果有多糟。

So notice I haven't told you that it ended in this disaster.

所以我这么跟你讲的时候，你就已经摆脱了结果带来的影响。

So when I describe it to you that way, you're now by definition out from under the shadow of the outcome.

这样你反而能更清楚地看到我的思考过程和决策逻辑，给我更准确的反馈。

And you can actually see through to what my thinking process is and what my decision process is a lot better, such that I am going to get higher fidelity feedback from you.

所以你可以从两个角度来做这件事。

So, you can do this in two ways.

一种是在结果出来之前，先好好复盘你的决策。

You can make sure that you're doing a lot of decision review before you get an outcome.

比如你要是当律师，就在陪审团宣判前，先把你的策略拆解一遍。

So I think I say, if you're a trial lawyer, deconstruct your strategy before the verdict from the jury.

因为那个判决本身可能没什么参考价值，信息量太少了。

Because that one verdict probably gonna be very There's not gonna be a ton of signal in it.

你得从更广的视角来看，因为这里面充满了太多随机性。

You would have to sort of see across a lot of different There's a lot of randomness there.

但如果判决已经出来了，而你还想问别人对你的策略有什么看法，就千万别告诉他们判决结果。

But if the verdict has already come in, and I'm going to talk to somebody else to try to find out what they think about my strategy, I should never tell them what the verdict was.

你应该假装判决还没发生，这样才不会影响他们对你决策的判断。

I should act as if it didn't happen yet so that I'm not sullying the way that they're gonna now think about the decision.

所以第一点，就是把结果隔离起来。

So that's number one, it's like quarantine outcomes.

第二点，是要把各种想法彼此隔离开。

Number two is to actually quarantine beliefs from each other.

这其实就是彼得·卡罗尔那件事的第二部分。

So that would be sort of that second piece of the Pete Carroll thing.

我可以这么说：我有几种不同的选择。

I can say, here are my different options.

我可以先选择传球，如果失败了，再连续跑球两次。

I could pass first, And then if that failed, could run the ball twice.

我可以先把球交给我方跑卫。

I could hand the ball off first.

所以我可以一一列出所有正在考虑的选项，但不告诉你我偏爱哪一个。

So I can just walk through, here are the different options under consideration, and then not tell you which one I like.

因为一旦我告诉你我喜欢哪一个，要么让你陷入必须反对的境地，要么我很容易就能说服你。

So now, because once I tell you which one I liked, either I'm putting you in a position where you have to disagree, or I'm probably gonna be pretty convincing.

你甚至可能都没意识到，但你已经开始用我告诉你的那个观点去重新审视问题了。

And you're not even gonna know it, but you're gonna start looking through the frame of trying to justify the thing that I've told you that I believe.

这还跟你是否把我当成自己人有一定关系。

And it's gonna depend a little bit about whether you sort of consider yourself in tribe or out of tribe to me.

如果你觉得我是自己人，你就会顺着我的想法去推理。

If you consider yourself in tribe, you'll reason toward my belief.

如果你觉得我不是自己人，你就会刻意反着我的观点去想。

If you consider yourself out of tribe, you'll reason away from the belief.

我们在政治上经常能看到这种情况——比如，要是奥巴马做了这事，或者要是特朗普做了这事？

We can see this in politics all the time where it's that thing of what if Obama did it or what if Trump did it?

这很荒谬，因为这不是信念问题，而是阵营问题。

Well, that's silly because that's a tribal problem, not a belief problem.

所以我完全可以把当时考虑过的所有选项都摆出来，但不告诉你我最终选了哪一个，也不说我觉得哪个更好。

So I can just literally present you with the different options that I had and then not tell you which one I chose, not tell you which one I believed was better.

现在你可以想想，我该怎么在事前就这么做。

And now you can think about how I could do that prospectively.

当我做决定的时候，我可以把所有可能的选项都告诉你。

When I'm considering a decision, I can tell you the options that I have.

然后我可以说：你觉得呢？

And now I can say, So what do you think?

我还可以问你一个问题：你觉得我有没有漏掉什么选项？

And one of the things that I can ask you about is, Do you think that I'm missing an option?

这个问题问得非常好。

That's a good question to ask.

而这时候，我还没告诉你我偏爱哪个选项。

And now I haven't told you which option I like.

所以现在我能从你这儿得到好得多的反馈。

So now I'm gonna get much better feedback from you.

这个谜题的第三部分是，当你在做任何群体决策时，都要确保这么做。

Then the third piece of that puzzle is to make sure that you're doing that when you have any kind of group decision making going on.

如果我想收集反馈，我就得单独去收集。

So if I'm trying to elicit feedback, I wanna actually elicit it separately.

我觉得最容易理解的方式是，招聘委员会里每个人先单独面试候选人，然后各自独立写评估报告，再聚到一起讨论。

So I think the easiest way to conceptualize this is if you have a hiring committee to have each person interview the candidate separately, and then have them each write their debrief separately before they get in a room with each other.

因为那样一来，大家就容易随大流。

Because then groupthink sets in.

随大流，但有时候恰恰相反，大家会故意唱反调。

Groupthink, but sometimes anti groupthink.

我们得记住，有时候如果一个人觉得另一个人是‘外人’，他反而会刻意走另一个极端。

I I think that one of the things again, we need to remember is that sometimes if someone views somebody else's out of tribe, that they'll actually go in the other direction.

所以这不只是随大流的问题。

So it's not just a groupthink problem.

有时候你会想，你不是我这边的人，所以我不能同意你。

Sometimes it's like, You're not my team, so I can't agree with you.

这同样糟糕。

And that's just as bad.

这也不是什么好事。

That's not good either.

你刚才说的很多内容让我想起，你当初学心理学时提到的‘自我’这个概念。

So much of what you've said makes me think about and back to your psychology roots, studying psychology as a student about this concept of ego.

在很多影响决策的负面因素里，太强的自我往往在捣乱。

And that in many of the bad influences on decision making, a large ego seems to be getting in the way.

所以，你觉得提升决策质量最好的办法，是不是该压制甚至消灭自我？

So do you think that one of the best strategies for improving decision making is to suppress the ego, to kill the ego?

这可能会让你有点意外。

That might give you a surprising answer here.

不是。

No.

咱们回到对话的开头吧。

Let's go back to the beginning of the conversation.

这个游戏的规则是什么？

What are the rules of the game?

我想赢。

I wanna win.

关键是这样。

Here's the thing.

我觉得我们天生就不擅长处理绝对定价。

Like, I think that we're not particularly well built for absolute pricing.

说到商品价格，其实都是相对的。

When you think of price of goods, price of goods, it's relative.

总有个基础成本，就是生产它得花多少钱。

There's some at the base, there's like cost to produce.

你知道，这双鞋和那双鞋，价格该差多少才合理？

You know, how much should this pair of shoes versus this pair of shoes cost?

这很大程度上取决于市场能接受什么价格。

It's a lot of like, what will the market bear?

也就是说，别人愿意为这个东西付多少钱？

Like, what are people telling you they're willing to pay for?

这个跟那个比起来，看起来怎么样？

What does this look like compared to this other thing?

如果两者非常相似，价格就得差不多，哪怕生产成本差别很大。

If they're very similar, the price has to be similar relative to each other, despite what the cost to produce might be.

商品价格背后全是这种相对性，但你也可以把这种思维用在自己的幸福感上。

There's all this sort of relativity just in cost of goods, but you can think of also just in terms of your own happiness.

我们都知道，如果问一个人：你更愿意做1650年社会经济地位前10%的人，还是今天社会经济地位后20%的人？

We know that if you ask somebody, would you rather be in the top 10% of the sort of socioeconomic status in 1650 or in the bottom 20% of socioeconomic status today?

几乎所有人都选1650年。

Literally everybody chooses sixteen fifty.

从绝对价格的角度看，你为什么选1650年？

From absolute pricing, why are you choosing 1650?

我觉得你那时候的寿命大概也就四十岁左右吧。

I think your life expectancy is like 40 or something.

街上都是露天排污沟。

There's open sewer.

连疫苗都没有。

There's no vaccines.

什么？

What?

因为我们根本不知道自己高不高兴，除非拿自己跟别人比。

But because we don't really know we're happy unless we're comparing ourselves to other people.

所以我觉得，抑制自己的自尊心，是个特别棒的目标。

So I think that suppressing your ego is an amazing goal.

我真的这么觉得。

I really do.

我平时会练习正念。

I practice mindfulness.

我尽量这么做。

I try to do that.

我觉得我们注定会失败，因为我们根本不知道该怎么看待自己，除非老拿自己跟别人比。

I think that we're doomed to fail because we don't really know how to value ourselves without thinking about like, how do we value ourselves compared to other people?

我想说明白一点，我觉得你真该去实践另一件事。

And I want to be clear that I think you should practice that other thing.

我觉得你真该去实践。

I think you should practice.

我该怎么放下我的自尊心呢？

How do I take my ego out of it?

我该怎么避免这种心态？

How do I not have that?

但你有没有跟那些真在练这玩意儿的人聊过？他们反而特别在意自己有多没自尊心。

But I don't know if you've ever talked to certain people who practice this stuff, but they have a lot of ego about how much ego they don't have.

你有没有发现这一点？

Have you noticed that?

我特别有觉察力，真的会把自我从一切事情里剥离出来。

Oh, I'm very mindful and I really take my ego out of everything.

我就是那个没自我、没 ego 的人。

I'm the non ego guy.

我在放下自我这方面，比你强多了。

I'm way better at not having an ego than you.

人们得留心听，因为这种话到处都能听到。

People should listen for that because they'll hear that.

总有那么些人，动不动就说：我放下自我比你厉害多了。

There's all those people who are like, I'm better at not having an ego than you.

所以我现在就想，好吧，我得练习，试着把自我从事情里放下来。

So I'm sort of like, Okay, I'm gonna practice trying to take my ego out of things.

我真的在努力。

I really am.

但我心里也清楚，最后我可能也会变成那种人——说我放下自我比你强多了。

But I also recognize that I'm going to end up being one of those people who's like, I'm way better at taking my ego out than you.

那我们接下来该怎么做呢？

So what do we do then?

这还得回到游戏的规则上来。

It goes back to the rules of the game.

你要先明确，哪些东西是我真正看重的。

You identify, these are the things that I value.

这些是我认为能让我做决策更出色的要素。

Here are the things that I think are going to make me better as a decision maker.

在分析一个决策的结构时，我们知道它的基础是‘我知道的’和‘我不知道的’这两部分。

One of these things, when we think about the anatomy of a decision, we know that at the base of it is the stuff you know and the stuff you don't know.

要不断对自己‘我知道的’这部分做内省，同时努力把那些本该属于‘我不知道的’内容从里面清理出来。

Doing that constant internal auditing of that stuff you know box, and then trying to extract as much of the stuff you don't know out of that box.

所以我明白，我必须持续做这件事。

So I know that I have to be doing that.

而要做到这一点，我就得愿意放下自己固有的信念。

And in order to do that, I have to be willing to let go of my beliefs sometime.

我得承认，我以前相信的东西其实是错的。

I have to realize the thing that I believed is wrong.

我最近就真遇到了这样的事。

I just actually had this happen to me.

那其实是一件特别好的事。

It was a really wonderful thing.

有时候，我得稍微调整一下自己的看法。

Sometimes, I have to calibrate my belief a little bit.

现在，调整看法其实有两种方式。

Now, I could calibrate it in two different ways.

我的信念可能会变得更坚定。

My belief could become stronger.

我会觉得这件事更可能是对的。

I could think the thing is more true.

有时候，往这个方向调整才是对的。

Sometimes that is the right direction to go.

它也可能基本保持不变。

It could kind of stay the same.

我可以稍微没那么相信它了。

I could believe it a little bit less.

我之前对这件事的相信程度是72%，现在降到了63%。

I could go from 72% on that, and now I am 63%.

但有时候，我会彻底反转自己的看法。

But sometimes I can have a full on reversal.

而这些恰恰是我最该感激的时刻。

And those are the things that I should actually be the most thankful for.

因为如果我真的一开始就搞错了，所有决定都建立在那个完全偏离轨道的信念上。

Because if I really had it wrong, every decision is informed by that belief that I have that's like completely out of whack.

所以显而易见，我的决定质量取决于我的信念有多准。

So obviously my decisions are only gonna be as good as my beliefs.

所以现在，对我来说，赢的游戏就是做出更好的决定。

So now if I say for me, the winning game is to make better decisions.

而这一切的基础是，这个认知框必须更准确。

And at the base of that is that this box has to be more accurate.

我知道的这些东西，要想让它们更准确，我就得主动去探索那些我不懂的部分，因为这才是真正能影响判断的关键。

And this box of stuff I know, these things that are in it, in order to create more accuracy, I have to really be seeking out this stuff I don't know box because that's what's gonna inform those.

现在，当我发现自己错了，其实我是在赢。

Now when I find out I'm wrong, I'm winning the game.

而且说实话，我觉得自己挺了不起的，因为我在赢这个游戏。

And by the way, I feel pretty good about myself that I'm winning the game.

我为自己愿意改变想法而感到自豪。

And I feel pretty good about myself that I changed my mind.

我也为自己能认可别人的观点而感到欣慰。

And I feel pretty good about myself that I gave that other person credit.

我特别感谢他们和我意见不同。

And that I'm really thankful that they disagreed with me.

我在这场游戏里已经很在行了。

And I'm really good at that game.

就这样了。

So there.

我觉得这也没什么不好。

I don't think that's so bad.

确实很有道理。

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

当你想到生活中谁在提升决策能力方面特别出色时，谁会第一时间浮现在你脑海里？

When I say think of somebody that stands out as being exceptional at improving their decision making ability that you've had in your life, who comes to mind?

我觉得我见过的最擅长这个的人是埃里克·西德尔，那位著名的扑克玩家。

I would say that the person that I know the best at this that I've ever seen is Eric Siedel, famous poker player.

他特别擅长发现自己的错误在哪里。

He's just really good at seeing where he might be making mistakes.

他在这方面专注得不得了。

Like, is so focused on that.

他非常开放，真心想向别人学习。

Very, very open minded, really wants to learn from other people.

坐在扑克桌旁被人赢了的时候，真的很难接受。

Think it's very hard when you're sitting at a poker table and somebody beats you.

要承认对方可能比你打得更好，实在太不容易了。

It's really hard to just admit that they might have played better than you.

尤其是当对方用的打法看起来很怪的时候，更难接受。

It's particularly hard when they're doing something that seems weird to you.

那是一种你从来没想过的策略，根本不在你的舒适区里。

That's a strategy that you hadn't thought of before, that you might not be in your wheelhouse.

这时候你就会觉得，自己好像少了点什么。

Then you sort of feel like you had a deficit.

所以你很容易就把它甩开，说对方不过是运气好罢了。

So it is a lot easier to sort of swat that off and say, They are just a lucky idiot.

但他却特别擅长说：‘其实是我自己蠢。’

And he is just so good at saying, I am the idiot.

他特别能做到这一点。

He is so good at that.

我觉得他的成果和性格都体现了这一点。

And I think it shows in his results, shows in his temperament.

他非常冷静。

He's very calm.

不容易被激怒。

He doesn't get upset too easily.

他很早就明确了自己的目标。

I think he really defined what is the goal for him so early on.

我觉得自己特别幸运，能有机会接触到他。

And then, I feel like I was just really lucky to come in contact with him.

我沾了点他的光。

I got to catch a little bit of that disease.

我还差得远呢。

I'm not anywhere close to him.

他才是我追求的目标。

He would be my goal.

能达到他那样的境界，就是我的目标。

Getting to where he is would be my goal.

在那些擅长提升决策能力的人当中，你能说说他们倾向于改变游戏规则，还是不倾向于这么做吗？

Of people of that class that are good at improving their decision making ability, can you say anything about their tendency or lack of tendency to change the rules of the game?

所以，真正擅长这方面的人，是经常换新游戏玩，还是更愿意在一个最初的目标上持续精进、保持稳定？

So how often are people that are really good at this playing new games versus just getting really good at some original thing that they're trying to accomplish and being consistent?

这是个非常有意思的问题。

That's a very interesting question.

我觉得从高层次来看，一旦你明确了目标——这当然源于你的价值观——你就能看出为了达成它，这个游戏的规则是什么。

So I think that at a top level, you have to recognize that once you identify what a goal is, which obviously is informed by your values, that you can figure out what the rules of that game are for getting there.

从这个角度来说，你始终只有一个焦点：赢得这个游戏。

In that sense, you always have a singular focus on kind of like winning the game.

我总得弄清楚自己的目标是什么。

I always have to figure out what my goals are.

结合我的价值观，这个目标对我而言到底意味着什么？

Given what my values are, what does that goal mean for me?

所以这就回到了那个问题：如果我的目标是养家糊口，我就得想清楚自己的价值观，这样才能明白‘养家糊口’对我个人到底意味着什么。

So that's back to that question of if I know my goal is to provide for my family, I have to think about what my values are so I understand what provide for my family means for me personally.

然后我就能从那里倒推回去。

And then I can sort of go backwards from there.

我书里也提到过，逆向思考时间旅行这个概念非常重要。

I obviously think backwards time traveling, talk about in my book, really important.

那我需要建立哪些结构呢？

So what are the structures that I need to set in place?

比如我签订了哪些契约？

Like what are the contracts that I'm making?

这些契约真正定义了游戏的规则，以及赢得这场游戏意味着什么。

Which really defines what the rules are and what it would mean to win that game.

所以我觉得，真正这么做的人，都清楚这个最基本的道理。

So I think for people who are doing this, they recognize that very fundamental basic thing.

然后他们会在具体情境中，用同样的策略去判断：就眼下这件事而言，这个游戏的规则是什么？

And then what I think that they do is situationally speaking, they then now use that same strategy in order to figure out, given this particular thing that I'm engaging in, what are the rules of the game?

当我对客服人员特别恼火时，我一般不会大喊大叫，也不会生气，因为在这种情境下，我的目标其实是从对方那里得到我想要的东西。

When I'm really frustrated with someone who's like a customer service person, I generally I don't yell and I don't get upset because the rules of the game are actually to get out of them what I want.

如果我冲他们发火，我就知道这只会降低我达成目标的可能性。

And if I yell at them, I know that I'm just reducing my odds of doing that.

所以我通常会保持冷静，不是因为我内心真的不生气，而是因为我很快就想清楚了：我的目标是什么，要赢得这场游戏，我该怎么做。

So I tend to be very calm in those situations, not because I'm actually calm internally I'm upset but because I've defined very quickly what my goal is and what do I need to do in order to win this game.

即使我真的很生气，大喊大叫也完全适得其反。

And yelling is very counterproductive to that, even though I'm really mad.

这个回答特别清晰，让我想到了我特别喜欢的一本书——詹姆斯·卡斯的《有限与无限的游戏》。

Really clarifying answer, and it makes me think of one of my favorite James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games.

你读过这本书吗？

Have you read that book?

读过，是的。

I have, yeah.

我觉得可以把你的观点理解为：基于价值观的游戏，其实就是他提倡的那种无限游戏。

So I think an interesting way to frame your answer is that the value based game is sort of the infinite game that he advocates you play.

我想起什么《寿司英雄梦》之类的。

I think of like Hero Dreams of Sushi or something.

我很喜欢这种说法——游戏其实从规则之前就开始了，就像我们之前聊过的，得看具体情况，灵活切换。

I love that framing of really the game starts a layer before the rules of the game, kind of like we've talked about where you're switching and it's situation dependent and everything else.

我想和你探讨的最后一个话题是，和别人打交道时，心理学扮演的角色。

The last topic I want to explore with you is the role of psychology when you're dealing with other people.

当别人参与决策时，因为人性的复杂，往往会带来很大的不确定性。

So when other people are part of a decision that introduce sort of a big error term because of human psychology.

你在书里提到一个观点，说生活不是象棋，而是扑克，因为有人参与。

And this idea that you have in the book that life isn't chess, it's poker, because people are involved.

总有一部分是数学逻辑，另一部分是人的因素。

There's always sort of the math component and the people component.

不管是不是用扑克来打比方，能不能聊聊怎么应对别人的心理，把这些因素纳入你的决策考量？毕竟你做的很多决定都牵涉到别人。

So using poker or not, maybe just riff on that concept of how to deal with the psychology of others and factor that into the sorts of decision that you're making, which very often involve others.

我先从象棋和扑克的区别说起吧，我们之前其实已经绕着这个话题聊过一些了。

Let me just start with a little chess versus poker, because we've kind of talked around it a little bit.

我们之前讨论决策的构成时，提到里面主要有两方面。

When we were talking about the anatomy of the decision, we said there's kind of two big things in there.

一方面是你知道的，另一方面是你不知道的。

The first is stuff you know, stuff you don't know.

我们可以把这看作信息不完整或信念不够清晰，因为如果你误以为某件事是真的，那它就属于信息不完整。

We can think about that as incomplete information or poorly formed beliefs because if we think that something is true that's not, that would then go into the category of incomplete information.

除了信息不完整，我们还要面对决策和结果之间出现的运气干扰。

So we have incomplete information, and then we also have this intervention of luck in between the moment that we make the decision and whatever the outcome is.

确实，运气会介入其中。

So there is an intervention of luck.

我们可以把运气 broadly 理解为那些我们无法掌控的事情。

And we can think about luck generally as stuff we do not have control over.

如果拿象棋来说，虽然也有点运气成分，但其实并不多。

So if we think about chess, there's a little luck, but there's not really a lot.

我的意思是，不像掷骰子那样，一掷下去你的皇后就没了之类的情况。

I mean, certainly not in the sense that somebody rolls dice and then, you know, your queen comes off the board or something else.

天哪，糟了。

You know, Oh, no.

是七。

It's a seven.

再见，主教。

Bye, Bishop.

而且这里没有隐藏信息，因为我能看到棋盘上的全部局面。

And there's not hidden information in the sense of, I can see the whole position on the board.

这为什么重要呢？

Why that's important?

这意味着棋子的移动完全取决于玩家的技巧。

It means that pieces will only move by an active skill.

既然我能看清整个局面，我就知道所有棋子可能的走法。

And because I can see the whole position, I know all the possible places that those pieces could move are.

所以简单来说，下棋时采取稳妥策略是完全合理的。

So what that means just in a simple thing is that resulting in chess is a totally reasonable strategy.

我们下盘棋，输了，就知道我的选择比你差。

We play a game, lose, we know my decisions were worse than yours.

对了，咱们再回来说说相对定价。

By the way, back to relative pricing.

我们没法绝对地判断我的选择到底有多好。

We don't know absolute, like in an absolute sense, how good my decisions were.

我只知道相对于你来说怎么样。

I only know compared to you.

但要是换成扑克，情况就不一样了。

So now if we think about poker, that's no longer true.

里面有隐藏信息，我看不见对方的牌。

There's hidden information, I can't see the cards.

而且还有运气成分。

And there's also luck.

牌一发，事情就发生了，你赢了我。

Cards turn, stuff happens, you beat me.

所以在扑克里，光看结果其实是个很差的策略。

So in poker now, we can see that resulting is quite a poor strategy.

我们打一小时扑克，我输给你了，但其实我们根本没法判断谁的决策更优。

We play some poker, an hour of poker, I lose to you, and we don't really know anything about my decisions in comparison to you.

我们只是感觉好像能判断似的。

We just feel like we do.

总觉得我肯定是水平最差的，可实际上我们根本不知道。

We feel like we know I was the worst player, but we actually don't know that.

因为在扑克里，就算我手牌最好、打得也到位，照样可能输，反过来也一样。

Because in poker, I can have the best hand, I can play it quite well, and I can still lose, and vice versa.

但在象棋里，这种情况根本不会发生。

In chess, that just doesn't happen.

只要我下出最佳着法，就一定能赢。

If I make the best moves, I get to win.

所以这就是象棋和扑克之间的区别。

So that chess versus poker thing.

而扑克正是因为它，成了更好的决策模型。

And poker is just a better model for decision making because of that.

在扑克里，一个关键的隐藏信息就是：你手里到底拿的是什么牌？

Now, one thing that happens in poker is that the hidden information is really what do you have?

但我们可以更广义地想，不只是你的牌看不见，你其实还知道自己的牌是什么。

But then we can also think generally about not only just that your cards are hidden from view, there's also things that you know, so you know what your cards are.

但接下来，你又会怎么应对这些牌呢？

But then there's also how are you going to react to your cards?

所以别人的行动，也是我无法掌控的部分。

So the actions of others are also things that I can't control.

有很多事情，我根本不知道。

There are things that I don't know.

我不知道别人会做出什么举动。

I don't know what the actions of others are going be.

我也不清楚你内心真实的想法和感受。

I don't know what your thoughts and feelings are really.

我无法得知那些信息。

I don't have access to that.

说实话，连我自己的内心想法都很难完全把握，心理学早就告诉我们这一点了。

I hardly have access to my own to be fair, as we know from psychology.

至于你的，我更不可能知道了。

But I certainly don't have access to yours.

所以，问题不只是我不知道下一張牌会是什么。

So, it is not just that I don't know what card is going to come out.

我更不知道你会怎么行动。

It like I don't know how you are going to act.

而且你也不一定会做出理性选择。

And you are not necessarily always going to act rationally.

如果我知道你手里有A，萨莉那边也有A，我猜你可能会用A做点什么，那萨莉也一样。

So if I knew you have ACEs, and Sally has ACEs over here, and I bet you might do something with those ACEs, then Sally will.

所以我其实根本不确定，只能靠猜测。

So I don't really know that, and I am guessing at that.

所以很明显，当我们谈扑克时，我现在是在零和博弈里尽力压过你。

So obviously, when we are talking about poker, I am now trying to, in a zero sum way, best you.

我要猜你手里是什么牌，你对这些牌怎么想，再猜你对我的想法又会怎么反应。

So I am trying to take a guess at what are your cards, and what are you thinking about them, and how do I think about what you are thinking about them.

这一切都应该是公平的博弈。

And this is all meant to be an even exchange.

我赢了，你输了——希望如此；或者遗憾点，你赢了，我输了。

I win, you lose hopefully, or sadly maybe you win, I lose.

我能不能准确缩小可能的牌型范围，应对这些不确定性，判断运气在结果里占多大比重，比别人更准地预测你手里的牌会怎么打，怎么引导你做出特定的举动，以及你各种手牌出现的概率——这些才决定我能不能赢。

So how good I am at kind of narrowing down those ranges, like working in those uncertainties, identifying how much luck is going be in the outcome, taking a better guess than most people at what you might do with your cards, how I might be able to get you to sort of act in certain ways, what the probabilities are of the different hands that you might have.

这些因素，最终决定了我能不能赢。

That's going to kind of determine how I win.

所以这就是我们刚才说的简单部分：你有多擅长猜透那些你不知道的东西？

So that's the straightforward stuff that we've been talking about of how good are you at figuring out sort of what's in that stuff you don't know box?

你又有多擅长审视自己明明知道却没想清楚的部分？

How good are you at auditing the stuff you do know box?