南加州大学古尔德法学院毕业典礼演讲

2007 · 演讲 · 原文约 5065 词
译文与英文原文逐段对齐可在本页展开英文,也可打开发布者原址核对上下文。
打开来源正文

查理·芒格——2007 年南加州大学法学院毕业典礼演讲

毫无疑问,你们很多人都纳闷,为什么演讲者这么老。答案很明显:他还没死。那为什么选他演讲呢?我也不清楚。我倒希望这事跟学校的发展部没关系。不管什么原因,我觉得自己坐在这里挺合适,因为我看到后面有一群没穿学位袍的面孔。我知道,从我教育了一大群子孙后代的经历来看,真正配得上许多荣誉的,是坐在前面这些人。

一代人传给下一代的牺牲、智慧和价值转移,永远不能低估。看着左边这一大片亚裔面孔,我无比欣慰。我这辈子一直敬佩孔子。我欣赏孝道这个观念,就是有些价值观是教出来的,有些责任是自然而然的,这一切都应该传承给下一代。有些人不信这一套,那请你们注意,这些亚裔面孔在美国社会里上升得有多快。我觉得他们身上有些东西。

好了,我潦草写了几条提纲,打算试着讲讲一些对我很管用的想法和态度。我不保证对每个人都适用。不过我觉得其中很多几乎算是普世价值,很多是不会失败的思路。那到底哪些核心理念帮了我呢?

幸运的是,我很早就明白了一个道理:想得到你想要的,最稳妥的办法就是努力配得上你想要的东西。这个道理很简单,可以说是黄金法则。你想交付给世界的,应该是你站在另一边时自己也愿意买的东西。在我看来,没有比这更好的信条了,无论对律师还是对任何人都一样。大体上说,秉持这种信条的人,在人生中会是赢家。他们赢的不只是金钱和荣誉,更是周围人的尊重和应得的信任。得到应得的信任,人生能获得巨大的快乐。所以,赢得信任的办法就是,换位思考,交付你反过来也想买的东西。偶尔你会碰到一个彻头彻尾的坏蛋,死的时候既富有又出名。但大多数时候,周围的人是看透他的。葬礼上教堂坐满了人,大部分人其实是来庆祝他终于死了的。

这让我想起一个故事:有个这种人死了,牧师说,“现在,请哪位来说说逝者的好话。”

Charlie Munger - USC Commencement Speech 2007 Well no doubt many of you are wondering why the speaker is so old, well the answer is obviously he hasn’t died yet. And why was the speaker chosen? Well I don’t know that either. I like to think that the development department had nothing to do with it. Whatever the reason I think it’s very fitting that I'm sitting here because I see one crowd of faces in the rear not wearing robes, and I know, from having educated an army of descendants, who really deserves a lot of the honors that are being given are the people here upfront. The sacrifice and the wisdom and the value transfer that comes from one generation to the next can never be underrated. And that gives me enormous pleasure as I look at this sea of Asian faces to my left. All my life I’ve admired Confucius. I like the idea of filial piety, the idea that there are values that are taught and duties that come naturally and all that should be passed on to the next generation. And you people who don’t think there’s anything in this idea, please note how fast these Asian faces are rising in American life. I think they have something. All right, I scratched out a few notes and I’m going to try and just give an account of some ideas and attitudes that have worked well for me. I don’t claim that they are perfect for everybody. Although I think many of them are pretty close to Universal values and many of them are can’t fail ideas. What are the core ideas that have helped me? Well luckily I got at a very early age, the idea that the safest way to try and get what you want, is to try and deserve what you want. It’s such a simple idea, it’s the golden rule so to speak. You want to deliver to the world what you would buy if you were on the other end. There is no ethos in my opinion, that is better for any lawyer or any other person to have. By and large the people who have this ethos win in life and they don’t win just money, just honors, they win the respect, the deserved trust, of the people they deal with, and there is huge pleasure in life to be obtained from getting deserved trust. And so the way to get it is to deliver what you’d want to buy if the circumstances were reversed. Occasionally you find a perfect rogue of a person, who dies rich and widely known. But mostly these people are fully understood by the surrounding civilization, and when the cathedral is full of people at the funeral ceremony, most of them are there to celebrate the fact that the person is dead. And, that reminds me of the story of the time when one of these people died and the minister said, “it’s now time for someone to say something nice about the deceased”.

始终无人挺身而出。始终无人。始终无人。

最后,终于有一个人站出来说:“嗯,他弟弟比他更差劲。”

那可不是你该去的方向!那可不是你想要的葬礼,你会留下完全错误的榜样。

我早年学到的第二个理念是:没有什么爱比基于仰慕的爱更正确,而这种爱应该包括那些值得学习的逝者。不知何故,我领悟了这个道理,并且一生都奉行不渝,它对我极其有用。像毛姆在他的小说《人性的枷锁》中所颂扬的那种爱,是一种病态的爱,是一种疾病。如果你发现自己陷入了那样的疾病,我给你的建议是,转身纠正它,彻底清除它。

另一个我学到的理念,这或许会让你想起孔子——那就是,获取智慧是一种道德责任,它不是你为了在生活中进步才去做的事情。获取智慧是一种道德责任。这个命题还有一个非常重要的推论:它意味着你终生都要学习,没有终身学习,你们这些人不会做得很好。你们未来的人生,不会仅仅依靠你们已经知道的东西走得很远。你们的人生进步,要靠离开这里之后学到的东西。就拿伯克希尔·哈撒韦来说,它无疑是世界上声誉最高的公司之一,或许还拥有整个文明史上最出色的长期投资记录。让伯克希尔走完一个十年的技能,并不足以让它带着同样的成就走完下一个十年。如果沃伦·巴菲特不是一个学习机器,一个持续不断的学习机器,这个记录根本不可能实现。

在较低层次的职业中也是如此。我不断看到有人能在生活中崛起,他们并非最聪明的人,有时甚至不是最勤奋的人,但他们是学习机器——他们每晚睡觉时,都比早上起床时稍微聪明一点。天哪,这真的很有帮助,尤其当你面前还有很长的路要走的时候。

阿尔弗雷德·诺斯·怀特海德曾经说过:“文明的快速进步,只有在人类发明了‘发明的方法’之后才出现。”当然,他指的是人均 GDP 的巨大增长,以及所有我们现在习以为常的美好事物,这些现象始于几百年前,在那之前一切都是停滞不前的。

所以,如果文明只有在发明了发明的方法之后才能进步,那么你也只有在学会了学习的方法之后才能进步。

我非常幸运。我进入法学院时就已经学会了学习的方法,在我漫长的一生中,没有什么比持续学习更能帮到我了。如果你给沃伦·巴菲特计时,我会说他一半以上的时间都坐在椅子上阅读。而剩下的大部分时间,他都在进行一对一的交谈,要么是电话,要么是当面,与他信任且信任他的、极具天赋的人交流。换句话说,所有这些世俗的成功,看起来都相当学术化。

学术界有许多极好的价值。我不久前就遇到过一个。那是几年前的事了。在我担任医院董事会主席期间,我与一位医学院的学者打交道。这个人经过多年的艰苦努力,使自己比世界上几乎任何人更了解骨肿瘤病理学。他想把这些知识传授给我们其他人。他打算怎么做呢?他决定写一本对他人非常有用的教科书。我认为像这样的教科书,如果那两千册都放在全世界各大癌症中心,卖不出两千册。他休了一年学术假,坐在电脑前,他所有的幻灯片都保存着,因为他把它们整理、归档了。他每天工作 17 个小时,每周工作 7 天,整整一年,这就是他的学术假。一年结束时,他写出了一本世界上最伟大的骨肿瘤病理学教科书。当你身边有这种价值理念时,你会想尽可能多地吸收。

另一个对我极其有用的理念是,我在法学院听到某个插科打诨的人说:“法律人的头脑是这样一个头脑:当两件事纠缠在一起并相互作用时,觉得自己可以负责任地只考虑其中一件,而忽略另一件。”我从这句话中立刻看出,这完全是荒谬的,而这进一步推动了我天生的倾向,那就是学习所有重要学科中的所有重要思想。这样我就不会成为一个彻头彻尾的蠢货,试图用建设性的方式去思考某个与整体情境不可分割的片面问题。而且我注意到,真正重要的思想承担了 95% 的重担,所以对我来说,掌握所有重要学科中的所有重要思想,并把它们变成我思维习惯的标准组成部分,一点都不难。

当然,一旦你掌握了这些思想,如果不实践,它们就没有用。你不实践,就会失去它们。所以我一生都在不断实践这种跨学科的方法。我无法告诉你这为我带来了什么——它让生活更有趣,让我更有建设性,让我更能帮助他人,让我变得极其富有,你说什么好处都有。这种态度确实很有用。不过这里面也有危险,因为它太有用了,以至于当你这样做时,你会经常发现,你自己正坐在某个其他专家面前,或许甚至是一个比你更优秀的专家在监督你。而你对他的专业领域,比他本人懂得还要多,多得多。当他遗漏了正确答案时,你能看到正确的答案。这是非常危险的位置。你出于好意,正确指出了问题,却导致别人丢了面子,这会冒犯到对方。我从未找到完美的办法来解决这个问题。

我年轻时是个很厉害的扑克玩家,但我玩得不够好,没能让人察觉到我认为自己比他们更懂他们自己的领域,结果得罪了很多人。现在我被视为古怪,但那是一段难熬的时期。我的建议是,学会有时要把自己的光芒藏起来。我的一位同事,也是法学院班级第一名,后来一生事业成功,曾为最高法院工作等等。他知道很多,而且作为一个非常年轻的律师,他倾向于表现出来。有一天,高级合伙人把他叫进办公室说:“听着,查克,我想跟你解释一件事。你的职责,在任何情况下,都是要让客户觉得他是世界上最聪明的人。如果在此之后你还有多余的精力或洞察力,那就用来让你的高级合伙人看起来像是世界上最聪明的人。只有在你满足了这两个义务之后,你才能让自己的光芒闪烁一下。”嗯,对于在大公司里晋升来说,这可能是非常好的建议。但这不是我的做法。我总是遵从自己的天性,如果别人不喜欢,我也不需要被所有人爱戴。

另一个理念,顺便说一句,当我谈论这种跨学科态度时,我实际上是在遵循古代最伟大的律师——马库斯·图利乌斯·西塞罗的一个非常关键的思想。西塞罗有句名言:“一个人如果不知道他出生之前发生过什么事,那他就像个孩子一样过完一生。”西塞罗这个想法非常正确。他嘲笑那些愚蠢到不知道出生前发生了什么的人,是对的。但如果你像我一样认为应该推广西塞罗的思想,那么除了历史之外,你还需要知道其他很多东西,而这些其他东西就是所有其他学科中的重要思想。仅仅知道这些思想到能应付考试并得 A 的程度是不够的。你必须以这样的方式学习它们,让它们成为你头脑中的思维框架,并在此后的一生中自动使用它们。如果你这样做了,我郑重向你保证,总有一天你走在街上,左右看看,会想:“我的天哪!我现在成了我整个时代中为数不多的最有能力的人之一。”如果你不这样做,你们中最聪明的许多人也将生活在中等阶层或浅滩。

另一个我学到的理念,院长讲的那个关于想知道自己会死在哪里就永远不去那里的故事,就很好地概括了它。那个乡下人手里握着一个深刻的真理。复杂适应系统运作的方式和思维建构运作的方式表明:问题常常会变得更容易,我甚至想说,如果你反过来思考,问题通常更容易解决。换句话说,如果你想帮助印度,你应该问的问题不是“我怎样才能帮助印度?”,而是“什么对印度造成的损害最大?什么会自动造成最严重的损害,我该如何避免它?”你可能认为它们在逻辑上是一样的,但它们不是。你们当中精通代数的人都知道,逆向思维常常能解决其他方法解决不了的问题。

在生活中,除非你比爱因斯坦更有天赋,否则逆向思维将帮助你解决那些你无法用其他方法解决的问题。

那么,现在用一点逆向思维:生活中什么会让你彻底失败?你想避免什么?答案很容易:懒惰和不可信赖。如果你不可信赖,那么你无论有什么美德都无关紧要了,你会立刻一败涂地。所以,忠实地履行你承诺要做的事,应该成为你行为中自动的一部分。你要避免懒惰和不可信赖。

我认为还有一件事应该避免,那就是极其强烈的意识形态,因为它会禁锢一个人的思想。你都见过。你在电视上看到很多,比如传教士,你知道他们对神学都有不同的看法,其中很多人的思想就像卷心菜一样。但这也会发生在政治意识形态上。如果你还年轻,很容易陷入忠诚之中。当你宣布自己是一个忠实的成员,开始大声喊出正统意识形态时,你所做的就是在不断加固它,不断加固它,你在逐渐毁掉自己的头脑,所以你要对意识形态非常小心。这是一个巨大的危险。

在我脑海里,每当我想到意识形态时,都会用一个小小的例子:那些斯堪的纳维亚的皮划艇运动员,他们成功征服了斯堪的纳维亚的所有湍急河流,然后他们认为自己可以挑战美国亚伦急流中的漩涡。死亡率是 100%。一个大漩涡不是你想去的地方,我认为极其深刻的意识形态也是如此。当我自然地倾向于偏爱一种意识形态而非另一种时,我有一个所谓的“铁律”来帮助我保持理智。那就是:“除非我能比对手更好地阐述反对我立场的论点,否则我无权对这个问题持有任何观点。我认为只有到了那个阶段,我才有资格发言。”你可能会说这过于铁律了,但这并不过于铁律,甚至也不算难做到。这听起来很像斐迪南大帝的铁律:“坚持并不需要希望。”

这对大多数人来说可能太难了,我不认为这对我有难度,但对大多数人来说太难了。

And nobody came forward. And nobody came forward. And nobody came forward. And finally one man came up and he said, “well, his brother was worse”. That is not where you want to go! That’s not the kind of funeral you want to have you'll leave entirely the wrong example. A second idea that I got very early was that there is no love that’s so right as admiration based love, and that love should include the instructive dead. Somehow I got that idea and I lived with it all my life and it’s been very very useful to me. A love like that celebrated by Somerset Maugham and his book “Of Human Bondage” that’s a sick kind of love, it’s a disease. And if you find yourself in a disease like that my advice to you is turn around and fix it. Eliminate it. Another idea that I got and this may remind you of Confucius too, is that wisdom acquisition is a moral duty, it’s not something you do just to advance in life. Wisdom acquisition is a moral duty. And there’s a corollary to that proposition which is very important, it means that you’re hooked for lifetime learning, and without lifetime learning you people are not going to do very well. You are not going to get very far in life based on what you already know. You’re going to advance in life by what you’re going to learn after you leave here. If you take Berkshire Hathaway, which is certainly one of the best regarded corporations in the world and may have the best long-term investment record in the entire history of civilization. The skill that got Berkshire through one decade would not have sufficed to get it through the next decade with the achievements made. Without Warren Buffett being a learning machine, a continuous learning machine, the record would have been absolutely impossible. The same is true at lower walks of life. I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines, they go to bed every night a little wiser than when they got up and boy does that help particularly when you have a long run ahead of you. Alfred North Whitehead said it one time that “the rapid advance of civilization came only when man invented the method of invention”, and of course he was referring to the huge growth of GDP per capita and all the other good things that we now take for granted which started a few hundred years ago and before that all was stasis. So if civilization can progress only when it invents the method of invention, you can progress only when you learn the method of learning. I was very lucky. I came to law school having learned the method of learning and nothing has served me better in my long life than continuous learning. And if you take Warren Buffett and watched him with a time clock, I would say half of all the time he spends is sitting on his ass and reading. And a big chunk of the rest of the time is spent talking one on one either on the telephone or personally with highly gifted people whom he trusts and who trust him. In other words it looks quite academic all this worldly success. Academia has many wonderful values in it. I came across such a value not too long ago. It was several years ago. In my capacity as a hospital board chairman I was dealing with a medical school academic. And this man over years of hard work had made himself know more about bone tumor pathology than almost anybody else in the world. And he wanted to pass this knowledge on to the rest of us. And how was he going to do it? Well he decided to write a textbook that would be very useful to other people. And I don’t think a textbook like this sells two thousand copies if those two thousand copies are in all the major cancer centers in the world. He took a year sabbatical, he sat down in his computer and he had all the slides because he saved them and organized them and filed them. He worked 17 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a year and that was his sabbatical. At the end of the year he had one of the great bone tumor pathology textbooks in the world. When you’re around values like that, you want to pick up as much as you can. Another idea that was hugely useful to me was that I listened in law school when some wag said, “A legal mind is a mind that when two things are all twisted up together and interacting, it's feasible to think responsibly about one thing and not the other." Well I could see from that one sentence that that was perfectly ridiculous, and it pushed me further into my natural drift, which was into learning all the big ideas and all the big disciplines. So I wouldn’t be a perfect damn fool who was trying to think about one aspect of something that couldn’t be removed from the totality of the situation in a constructive fashion. And what I noted since the really big ideas carry 95% of the load, it wasn’t at all hard for me to pick up all the big ideas and all the big disciplines and make them a standard part of my mental routines. Once you have the ideas of course they are no good if you don’t practice. You don’t practice you lose it. So I went through life constantly practicing this model of disciplinary approach. Well I can’t tell you what that’s done for me, it’s made life more fun, it’s made me more constructive, it’s made me more helpful to others, it’s made me enormously rich, you name it, that attitude really helps. Now there are dangers there, because it works so well, that if you do it, you will frequently find you are sitting in the presence of some other expert, maybe even an expert that’s superior to you, supervising you. And you will know more than he does about his own specialty, a lot more. You will see the correct answer when he’s missed it. That is a very dangerous position to be in. You can cause enormous offense by helpfully being right in a way that causes somebody else to lose face. And I never found a perfect way to solve that problem. I was a great poker player when I was young but I wasn’t a good enough poker player so people failed to sense that I thought I knew more than they did about their subjects and it gave a lot of offense. Now I’m just regarded as eccentric but it was a difficult period to go through. And my advice to you is to learn sometimes to keep your light under a bushel. One of my colleagues, also number one in his class in law school, a great success in life worked for the supreme court etc. He knew a lot and he tended to show it as a very young lawyer and one day the senior partner called him in and said, “listen Chuck, I want to explain something to you. Your duty under any circumstances is to behave in such a way that the client thinks he’s the smartest person in the world. If you have any little energy and insight available after that, use it to make your senior partner look like the smartest person in the world. And only after you’ve satisfied those two obligations do you want your light to shine at all”. Well, that may be very good advice for rising in a large firm. It wasn’t what I did I always obeyed the drift of my nature and if other people didn’t like it I didn’t need to be adored by everybody. Another idea, and by the way when I talk about this multidisciplinary attitude I’m really following a very key idea of the greatest lawyer of antiquity, Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero is famous for saying, “a man who doesn’t know what happened before he was born goes through life like a child”. That is a very correct idea of Cicero’s. And he’s right to ridicule somebody so foolish as not to know what happened before he was born. But if you generalize Cicero as I think one should, there are all these other things that you should know in addition to history and those other things are the big ideas in all the other disciplines. And it doesn’t help you just to know them enough just so you can regurgitate them back on an exam and get an A. You have to learn these things in such a way that they’re in a mental latticework in your head and you automatically use them for the rest of your life. If you do that I solemnly promise you that one day you’ll be walking down the street and look to your right and left and think, “my heavenly days! I’m now one of the few most competent people of my whole age forward." If you don’t do it, many of the brightest of you will live in the middle ranks or in the shallows. Another idea that I got, and it was encapsulated by that story the Dean recounted about the man who wanted to know where he was going to die and he wouldn’t go there, that rustic let that idea have a profound truth in his hand. The way complex adaptive systems work and the way mental constructs work; problems frequently get easier and I would even say usually are easier to solve if you turn around in reverse. In other words if you want to help India, the question you should ask is not “how can I help India?”, you think “what’s doing the worst damage in India? What would automatically do the worst damage and how do I avoid it?" You’d think they are logically the same thing, they’re not. Those of you who have mastered algebra know that inversion frequently will solve problems which nothing else will solve. And in life, unless you’re more gifted than Einstein, inversion will help you solve problems that you can't solve in other ways. But to use a little inversion now, what will really fail in life? What do you want to avoid? Such an easy answer; sloth and unreliability. If you’re unreliable it doesn’t matter what your virtues are, you’re going to crater immediately. So doing what you have faithfully engaged to do should be an automatic part of your conduct. You want to avoid sloth and unreliability. Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology because it cabbages up one’s mind. You’ve seen that. You see a lot of it on TV you know preachers for instance, you know they’ve all got different ideas about theology and a lot of them have minds that are made of cabbage. But that can happen with political ideology. And if you're young it’s easy to drift in to loyalties and when you announce that you’re a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out what you’re doing is pounding it in, pounding it in and you’re gradually ruining your mind so you want to be very careful with this ideology. It’s a big danger. In my mind I got a little example I use whenever I think about ideology and it’s these Scandinavian canoeists who succeeded in taming all the rapids of Scandinavia and they thought they would tackle the whirlpools in the Aaron Rapids here in the United States. The death rate was 100%. A big whirlpool is not something you want to go into and I think the same is true about a really deep ideology. I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another. And that is I say “I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people do who are supporting it. I think only when I reach that stage am I qualified to speak.” Now you can say that’s too much of an iron discipline, it’s not too much of an iron discipline, it’s not even that hard to do. It sounds a lot like the iron prescription of Ferdinand the Great, “it’s not necessary to hope in order to persevere." That probably is too tough for most people, I don’t think it’s too tough for me but it's too tough for most people.

但生活中不走极端意识形态这件事,是极为重要的,如果你想拥有更正确的认知、比其他人更智慧的话。浓厚的意识形态很可能会毁了你。

当然,另一件会害了你的东西,是我们都容易犯的自我服务偏差。你觉得自己这个小我,有权做自己想做的事,比如,凭什么真正的小我不能超支收入?嗯,曾经有个人成了全世界最著名的作曲家,但他大部分时间都痛苦不堪,原因之一就是他总超支收入——那就是莫扎特。如果连莫扎特都应付不了这种愚蠢行为带来的后果,我觉得你也不该去试。

一般来说,嫉妒、怨恨、报复和自怜都是灾难性的思维模式。自怜几乎接近偏执,而偏执是最难扭转的东西之一,你绝不想陷入自怜。我有个朋友,随身带着一厚摞亚麻卡片,大概这么厚。每当有人说出带自怜情绪的话,他就抽出一张,揭下最上面那张递给对方,卡片上写着:“你的故事触动了我的心,我从未听过谁有你这么多的不幸。”好吧,你可以说这是恶作剧,但我建议,每次你发现自己开始自怜时——我不在乎原因是什么,哪怕你的孩子可能死于癌症——自怜也改变不了局面。你就给自己递上那样一张卡片。这是一种荒谬的行为方式,而当你避免它时,你就获得了比其他人——几乎所有人——都大的优势,因为自怜是一种普遍状态,但你可以训练自己摆脱它。

当然,还有自我服务偏差。你得跳出自己,别以为对你有好处的就对整个文明有好处,别基于潜意识里为自己服务的倾向,去合理化那些荒谬的结论。这是一种极其不准确的思维方式,当然你必须把它从自己身上赶走,因为你想要聪明,而不是愚蠢。你还得考虑到别人身上的自我服务偏差,因为大多数人不会那么成功地消除它,现实就是如此。如果你在行为中不考虑到自我服务偏差,那你又是个傻瓜。

我曾看到那位才华横溢、哈佛法律评论出身的首席法律顾问丢了前程。事情是这样的:当 CEO 发现某个下属做了错事时,这位首席法律顾问说:“呃,我们并没有法律义务报告这件事,但我认为我们应该报告,这是我们的道德义务。”当然,法律顾问完全正确,但这当然行不通——这对 CEO 来说是件非常不愉快的事,他一拖再拖,结果一切演变成了一桩大丑闻,CEO 和首席法律顾问一起完蛋。遇到这种情况,正确的答案本杰明·富兰克林早就给过:他说,“如果你想说服别人,要诉诸利益,而非道理。”自我服务偏差的力量太极端了。

如果那位法律顾问说:“听着,这件事迟早会爆发,它会毁了你,夺走你的财富,夺走你的地位,完全是一场灾难”——那就会奏效!你要诉诸利益,你要用高尚的动机去做,但你不能避开诉诸利益。

另一件事是逆向激励。你不想身处一个逆向激励体系,它让你变得越来越愚蠢、越来越糟糕。激励机制是控制人类认知和行为的强大力量,你会在一些现代律师事务所中发现计费工时指标——我是不可能在每年 2400 小时的计费工时指标下生存的。那会给我造成严重问题,我不会去做,我也没给你答案,你得自己解决,但这是一个重大问题。

逆向的交往,也要避免。你要特别避免直接为自己不敬佩、也不想变成他那样的人工作。

这很危险——我们都在一定程度上受制于权威人物,确切地说是那些在奖励我们的权威人物。这需要一些技巧。我解决这个问题的方法是,找出我真正敬佩的人,然后巧妙地、不批评任何人的情况下,让自己完全只在敬佩的人手下工作。很多律师事务所会允许你这样,只要你足够精明地安排出来。在你真正敬佩的人手下工作,你的人生结果会更令人满意、好得多;另一种选择可不是个好主意。

保持客观性。我们都记得达尔文特别关注反证——尤其是反驳他相信并热爱的事物的证据。如果你想成为一个正确的思考者,生活中就完全需要保持客观性的例行程序。他们谈论达尔文的态度:特别关注反证,以及清单检查的例行程序。清单检查可以避免大量错误。你应该掌握所有这些基础智慧,然后通过清单来使用它们。没有其他方法能同样有效。

我发现的最后一个非常重要的想法是:我很早就意识到,在我想要生活的世界部分里,非平等主义会运作得更好。我所说的非平等主义是什么意思?就是约翰·伍登,他曾是世界排名第一的篮球教练,他对队里最差的五名球员说:“你们不上场,你们是陪练”,前七名球员打满全场。结果前七名学得更多——记住,学习机器——因为他们一直在打球。当伍登采用这一套系统时,他赢得的比赛比以往任何时候都多。

我认为,在很多方面,人生这场游戏,就是把大量练习机会交给那些最有学习天赋、最倾向于成为学习机器的人。如果你想达到人类文明的最高境界,你就必须这么做。你不想在为孩子挑选脑外科医生时,让五十个申请人轮流上手术台。你不想那样设计飞机。你不想那样运营伯克希尔·哈撒韦。你要把权力交到正确的人手里。

我经常讲马克斯·普朗克的故事。他获得诺贝尔奖后,在德国各地做量子力学演讲。他的司机渐渐记住了演讲内容,就说:“普朗克教授,您介意吗,老按部就班真是太无聊了,这次让我来演讲,您坐在前面,戴上我的司机帽子行吗?”普朗克说行啊。司机站起来,长篇大论地讲量子力学。讲完后,后排一位物理学教授站起来,问了一个极难的问题。司机说:“哦,我很惊讶,在慕尼黑这样先进的城市,会有人问这么初级的问题,我让我的司机来回答。”

我讲这个故事,不完全是赞美主角的机智。这个世界上有两种知识:一种是普朗克知识,那些真正懂的人,付出了代价,有天赋。另一种是司机知识,他们学会了鹦鹉学舌。他们头发浓密,声音动听,给人留下极深的印象,但最终他们有的是司机知识……我想我刚描述了大体上每一个美国政客。

你的人生中会面临一个问题:如何把责任交给拥有普朗克知识的人,而不是那些拥有司机知识的人,而且有巨大的力量在与你作对。我们这一代人某种程度上让你们失望了。我们交给你们的加州议会,只允许来自左翼的公认疯子和来自右翼的公认疯子任职,而且他们谁都动不了。这就是我们这代人为你们做的事——不过,你们也不希望事情太容易,对吧?

我还发现,对某个主题有强烈的兴趣,是真正出类拔萃不可或缺的条件。我可以强迫自己在很多事情上做得相当好,但在没有强烈兴趣的事情上,我无法做得真正出色。所以某种程度上,你只能跟随自己。如果可行的话,你要让自己滑向那些你真正有天然兴趣的事情。

另一件你必须做的事是,要有大量的“屁股坐得住”。我喜欢这个词,因为它意味着你坐在屁股上,直到把事情干完。我一生中有很棒的合作者。我想,我得到他们,部分是因为我努力配得上他们,部分是因为我足够聪明选择了他们,部分可能是一些运气。但我生命中某个小阶段选择的两个合作伙伴,定下了这样一条规矩:他们创建了一个小小的设计建造团队。他们坐下来,说:两人合伙,一切平分。规矩是:“每当我们在对别人的承诺上落后了,我们就每天干 14 个小时,直到赶上为止。”不用说,这家公司没有倒闭!那两个人都富得去世了。就是这么简单的想法。

当然,生活还会有可怕的打击、可怕的打击、不公平的打击,但这不重要。有些人能恢复,有些人不能。在这方面,我认为爱比克泰德的态度是最好的。他认为生活中每一次不幸都是你表现良好的机会,每一次不幸都是学习的机会,你的职责不是沉溺于自怜,而是以建设性的方式利用这次可怕的打击。这是一个非常好的想法。你可能记得爱比克泰德留给自己的墓志铭:“此地长眠着爱比克泰德,一个身体残缺的奴隶,赤贫至极,却为众神所眷顾。”这就是爱比克泰德被记住的方式。他说,巨大的后果。他是众神所宠爱的!他被宠爱,因为他变得智慧,变得有男子气概。非常好的想法。

最后还有一个想法,因为我既看重审慎,也看重机会主义。我的祖父是他所在城市唯一的联邦法官,做了将近四十年。我非常敬佩他。我是以他的名字命名的。我够儒家,以至于即使现在坐在这里,我还在想:“嗯,芒格法官会高兴看到我在这里。”所以我够儒家,在祖父去世这么多年后,仍然在传承祖父的价值观。芒格祖父在联邦法官时代,那时没有联邦法官遗孀的养老金。所以如果他没从收入里存钱,我祖母就会贫困。他是那样的人,一生都节省着花,为祖母留下了舒适的生活条件。

But this business of not drifting into extreme ideology is a very very important thing in life if you want to have more correct knowledge and be wiser than other people. A heavy ideology is very likely to do you in. Another thing of course that does one in is the self serving bias to which we are all subject. You think that your little me is entitled to do what it wants to do, and for instance why shouldn’t the true little me overspend my income? Well, there once was a man who became the most famous composer in the world but he was utterly miserable most of the time and one of the reasons was he always overspent his income, that was Mozart. If Mozart can’t get by with this kind of asinine conduct, I don’t think you should try it. Generally speaking, envy, resentment, revenge and self pity are disastrous modes of thought, self-pity gets pretty close to paranoia, and paranoia is one of the very hardest things to reverse, you do not want to drift into self-pity. I have a friend who carried a big stack of linen cards about this thick, and when somebody would make a comment that reflected self pity, he would take out one of the cards, take the top one off the stack and hand it to the person, and the card said, “your story has touched my heart, never have I heard of anyone with as many misfortunes as you”. Well you can say that’s waggery, but I suggest that every time you find you’re drifting into self pity, I don’t care what the cause your child could be dying of cancer, self-pity is not going to improve the situation, just give yourself one of those cards. It’s a ridiculous way to behave, and when you avoid it you get a great advantage over everybody else, almost everybody else, because self-pity is a standard condition and yet you can train yourself out of it. And of course a self serving bias, you want to get out of yourself, thinking that what’s good for you is good for the wider civilization and rationalizing all these ridiculous conclusions based on the subconscious tendency to serve one’s self. It’s a terribly inaccurate way to think and of course you want to drive that out of yourself because you want to be wise not foolish. You also have to allow for the self serving bias of everybody else, because most people are not gonna remove it all that successfully, the only condition being what it is. If you don’t allow for self serving bias in your conduct, again you’re a fool. I watched the brilliant Harvard law Review trained general counsel lose his career, and what he did was when the CEO was become aware some underling has done something wrong the general counsel said “gee we don’t have any legal duty to report this but I think it’s what we should do it’s our moral duty." Of course the general counsel was totally correct but of course it didn’t work it was a very unpleasant thing for the CEO to do and he put it off and put if off and of course everything erode into a major scandal and down went the CEO and the general counsel with him. The correct answer in situations like that was given by Ben Franklin, he said “if you want to persuade appeal to interest not to reason.” The self serving bias is so extreme. If the general counsel said, “look this is going to erupt, it’s something that will destroy you take away your money, take away your status it’s a perfect disaster”, it would have worked! You want to appeal to interest, you want to do it of lofty motives, but you should not avoid appealing to interest. Another thing, perverse incentives. You don’t want to be in a perverse incentive system that’s causing you to behave more and more foolishly or worse and worse. Incentives are too powerful a controller of human cognition and human behavior and one of the things you are going to find in some modern law firms is billable hour quotas and I could not have lived under a billable hour quota of 2,400 hours a year. That would have caused serious problems for me I wouldn’t have done it and I don’t have a solution for you for that you have to figure it out for yourself but it’s a significant problem. Perverse associations, also to be avoided. You particularly want to avoid working directly under somebody you really don’t admire and don’t want to be like. It’s very dangerous we are all subject to control to some extent our authority figures strictly authority figures that are rewarding us. And that requires some talent, the way I solved that is I figured out the people I did admire and I maneuvered cleverly without criticizing anybody so I was working entirely under people I admired. And a lot of law firms will permit that if you’re shrewd enough to work it out and your outcome in life will be way more satisfactory and way better if you work under people you really admire, the alternative is not a good idea. Objectivity maintenance. Well we all remember that Darwin paid special attention to disconfirming evidence particularly to disconfirm something he believed and loved. Well objectivity maintenance routines are totally required in life if you’re going to be a correct thinker. And they were talking about Darwin’s attitude, special attention to the disconfirming evidence, and also to checklist routines. Checklist routines avoid a lot of errors. You should have all this elementary wisdom and then you should go through and have a checklist in order to use it. There is no other procedure that will work as well. A last idea that I found very important is I realized very early that non-egality would work better in the parts of the world I wanted to inhabit. What do I mean by nonegality? I mean John Wood when he was the number one basketball coach in the world, he just said to the bottom five players, “you don’t get to play, you’re sparring partners”, the top seven did the whole playing. Well the top seven learned more, remember the learning machine, because they were doing all the playing. And when he got to that system Wood won more than he’d ever won before. I think the game of life in many respects is getting a lot of practice into the hands of the people that have the most aptitude to learn and the most tendency to be learning machines. And if you want the very highest reaches of human civilization that’s where you have to go. You do not want to choose a brain surgeon for your child among fifty applicants all of them just take turns during the procedure. You don’t want your airplanes designed that way. You don’t want your Berkshire Hathaway’s run that way. You want to get the power into the right people. I frequently tell the story of Max Planck when he won the Nobel prize and went around Germany giving lectures on quantum mechanics, and the chauffeur gradually memorized the lecture and he said, “would you mind professor Planck just, it’s so boring staying on our routines, would you mind if I gave the lecture this time and you just sat in front with my chauffeur’s hat?” And Planck said sure. And the chauffeur got up and gave this long lecture on quantum mechanics after which a physics professor stood up in the rear and asked a perfectly ghastly question and the chauffeur said, “well I’m surprised that in an advanced city like Munich I get such an elementary question, I’m going to ask my chauffeur to reply." Well the reason I tell that story is not entirely to celebrate the quick wittiness of the protagonist. In this world we have two kinds of knowledge, one is Planck knowledge, the people who really know, they paid the dues they have the aptitude. Then we got chauffeur knowledge, they have learned to prattle the talk. They have a big head of hair, they have a fine temper in the voice, they make a hell of an impression, but in the end they've got chauffeur knowledge… I think I’ve just described practically every politician in the United States. And you are gonna have the problem in your life of getting the responsibility into the people of the Planck knowledge in a way for the people who have the chauffeur knowledge, and there are huge forces working against you. My generation has failed you to some extent. We are delivering to you in California a legislature where only the certified nuts from the left and the certified nuts from the right are allowed to serve and none of them are removable. That’s what my generation has done for you, but you wouldn’t like it to be too easy would you? Another thing that I found is an intense interest of the subject is indispensable if you are really going to excel. I could force myself to be fairly good in a lot of things, but I couldn’t be really good in anything where I didn’t have an intense interest, so to some extent you’re going to have to follow me. If at all feasible you want to drift into doing something in which you really have a natural interest. Another thing you have to do of course is have a lot of assiduity. I like that word because it means sit down in your ass until you do it. I’ve had marvelous partners all my life. I think I got them partly because I tried to deserve them and partly because I was wise enough to select them and partly maybe it was some luck. But two partners that I chose for one little phase of my life had the following rule and they created a little designed build, construction team. And they sat down and said, 2 man partnership, divide everything equally, here’s the rule; “whenever we're behind in our commitments to other people we will both work 14 hours a day until we caught up." Well needless to say that firm didn’t fail! The people died rich. It’s such a simple idea. Another thing of course is life will have terrible blows, horrible blows, unfair blows, doesn’t matter. And some people recover and others don’t. And there I think the attitude of Epictetus is the best. He thought that every mischance in life was an opportunity to behave well, every mischance in life was an opportunity to learn something and your duty was not to be submerged in self-pity but to utilize the terrible blow in a constructive fashion. That is a very good idea. You may remember the epitaph which Epictetus left for himself, “Here lies Epictetus, a slave maimed in body, the ultimate in poverty, and favored of the gods”. Well that’s the way Epictetus is now remembered. He said big consequences. And he was favorite of the Gods! He was favored because he became wise, and he became manly. Very good idea. I got a final little idea because I’m all for prudence as well as opportunism. My grandfather was the only federal judge in his city for nearly forty years and I really admired him. I’m his namesake. And I’m Confucian enough that even now I sit here and I’m saying, “well, Judge Munger would be pleased to see me here." So I’m Confucian enough all these years after my grandfather is dead to carry the torch for my grandfather’s values. And grandfather Munger was a federal judge at a time and there were no pensions for widows of federal judges so he didn’t save from his income while my grandmother would have been impenured. And being the kind of man he was he underspent his income all his life and left her in comfortable circumstances.

上世纪三十年代,我叔叔的银行倒闭了,无法重新开业。我祖父用自己三分之一的优质资产注入银行,换回一堆糟糕的资产,从而救了这家银行。这当然挽救了银行,而我祖父虽然蒙受了损失,但最终拿回了大部分钱。我一直记得这个例子。所以上大学读到豪斯曼时,我记得他的一首小诗,大意如下:

“别人的念头轻飘即逝,

关乎恋爱、运气或名誉。

我的思绪全是麻烦,而且始终坚定,

当麻烦来临时,我已准备就绪。”

你可能会说:“谁愿意一辈子总预想麻烦?”但我愿意!我一生都在预想麻烦,如今已安然步入第 84 个年头,就像爱比克泰德一样,我过着得天独厚的生活。一直预想麻烦、准备好万一麻烦来了能从容应对,这并没有让我不快乐。它对我毫无伤害,实际上还帮了我。所以我把豪斯曼和芒格法官推荐给你们。

我想给你们的最后一个建议是,当你们进入一个经常在做事中加入大量程序、大量防范措施和大量花哨术语的行业时,要知道:文明所能达到的快速运转形式,是一张值得信任的无缝之网。不需要太多程序,只有完全可靠的人彼此正确信任。梅奥诊所的手术室就是这样运转的。如果让一群律师引入一大堆流程,病人全都会死。所以永远别忘了,当你作为一名律师时,你也许会因为兜售这些东西而获得报酬,但你不必自己买它。在你自己的生活中,你想要的就是一张值得信任的无缝之网。如果你未来的婚姻合同有 47 页,我的建议是:别签了。

好了,一个毕业演讲说这么多够了。希望我这个老人的这些思考对你们有用。最后,我就像《天路历程》中的老勇士-为真理而战:“我的剑留给能挥舞它的人。”

Along the way in the thirties my uncle’s bank failed and couldn’t reopen and my grandfather saved the bank by taking over a third of his assets, good assets, and putting them into the bank and taking up horrible assets in exchange. And of course it did save the bank and while my grandfather took a loss he got most of his money back eventually. But I’ve always remembered the example. And so when I got to college and I came across Houseman, I remember the little poem from Houseman that went something like this: “The thoughts of others were light and fleeting, of lovers' meeting Luck or fame. Mine were of trouble, And mine were steady, And I was ready When trouble came." You can say, “who wants to go through life anticipating trouble?”. Well I did! All my life I’ve gone through life anticipating trouble and here I am well along on my 84th year and like Epictetus I’ve had a favored life. It didn't make me unhappy to anticipate trouble all the time and be ready to perform adequately if trouble came. It didn’t hurt me at all. In fact it helped me. So I quick claim to you Houseman and Judge Munger. The last idea that I want to give you as you go out into a profession that frequently puts a lot of procedure and a lot of precautions and a lot of mumbo jumbo into what it does, this is not a fast form which civilization can reach. A fast form which civilization can reach is a seamless web of deserved trust. Not much procedure just totally reliable people correctly trusting one another. That’s the way an operating room works at the Mayo clinic. If a bunch of lawyers working to introduce a lot of process the patients would all die. So never forget when you’re a lawyer that you may be rewarded for selling this stuff but you don’t have to buy it. In your own life what you want is a seamless web of deserved trust. And if your proposed marriage contract has 47 pages my suggestion is do not enter. Well that’s enough for one graduation. I hope these ruminations of an old man are useful to you. In the end, I’m like the Old Valiant-for-Truth in The Pilgrim’s Progress; “My sword I leave to him who can wear it."