 July 2024 2024 年 7 月 Successful people tend to be persistent. New ideas often don't work at first, but they're not deterred. They keep trying and eventually find something that does. 成功的人往往很执着。新想法往往一开始行不通，但他们不会气馁。他们不断尝试，最终会找到行得通的方法。 Mere obstinacy, on the other hand, is a recipe for failure. Obstinate people are so annoying. They won't listen. They beat their heads against a wall and get nowhere. 另一方面，单纯的固执是失败的配方。固执的人真让人讨厌。他们不听劝。他们一头撞在墙上，却一无所获。 But is there any real difference between these two cases? Are persistent and obstinate people actually behaving differently? Or are they doing the same thing, and we just label them later as persistent or obstinate depending on whether they turned out to be right or not? 但是这两种情况真的有区别吗？执着和顽固的人实际上表现得不一样吗？还是他们做的事情是一样的，我们只是根据他们最终是否正确，后来才给他们贴上执着或顽固的标签？ If that's the only difference then there's nothing to be learned from the distinction. Telling someone to be persistent rather than obstinate would just be telling them to be right rather than wrong, and they already know that. Whereas if persistence and obstinacy are actually different kinds of behavior, it would be worthwhile to tease them apart. [1] 如果这是唯一的区别，那么从这种区别中就学不到任何东西。告诉某人要执着而不是顽固，就像告诉他们要正确而不是错误，而他们已经知道这一点。然而，如果执着和顽固实际上是不同种类的行为，那么将它们区分开来是值得的。[1] I've talked to a lot of determined people, and it seems to me that they're different kinds of behavior. I've often walked away from a conversation thinking either "Wow, that guy is determined" or "Damn, that guy is stubborn," and I don't think I'm just talking about whether they seemed right or not. That's part of it, but not all of it. 我跟很多意志坚定的人谈过， 在我看来，他们的行为方式是不同的。我经常在谈话后会想 “哇，这家伙真有决心” 或者 “该死，这家伙真固执”， 我想我不仅仅是在考虑他们是否正确。这是其中一部分，但不是全部。 (Note: This is an approximate translation and may vary in phrasing.) 更正后的翻译： 我跟很多意志坚定的人谈过，我觉得他们的行为方式是不同的。我经常在谈话后会想，“哇，这家伙真有决心”，或者“该死，这家伙真固执”，我认为我不仅仅是在考虑他们是否正确。这是其中一部分原因，但并非全部。 There's something annoying about the obstinate that's not simply due to being mistaken. They won't listen. And that's not true of all determined people. I can't think of anyone more determined than the Collison brothers, and when you point out a problem to them, they not only listen, but listen with an almost predatory intensity. Is there a hole in the bottom of their boat? Probably not, but if there is, they want to know about it. 固执的人有些恼人，这不仅仅是因为他们错了。他们不会听。但这并不适用于所有有决心的人。我想不出有比科利森兄弟更有决心的人了，当你向他们指出问题时，他们不仅会倾听，而且会以一种近乎捕食者的强度倾听。他们的船底有洞吗？可能没有，但如果有的话，他们想知道。 It's the same with most successful people. They're never more engaged than when you disagree with them. Whereas the obstinate don't want to hear you. When you point out problems, their eyes glaze over, and their replies sound like ideologues talking about matters of doctrine. [2] 这和大多数成功人士一样。当你与他们意见相左时，他们从未如此投入。而那些顽固的人并不想听你说什么。当你指出问题时，他们的眼神变得茫然，他们的回答听起来像是教条主义者在谈论教义。[2] The reason the persistent and the obstinate seem similar is that they're both hard to stop. But they're hard to stop in different senses. The persistent are like boats whose engines can't be throttled back. The obstinate are like boats whose rudders can't be turned. [3] 之所以持之以恒和顽固不化看起来相似，是因为它们都很难停下来。但它们难以停止的含义不同。持之以恒的人就像发动机无法减速的船。顽固不化的人就像舵无法转动的船。[3] In the degenerate case they're indistinguishable: when there's only one way to solve a problem, your only choice is whether to give up or not, and persistence and obstinacy both say no. This is presumably why the two are so often conflated in popular culture. It assumes simple problems. But as problems get more complicated, we can see the difference between them. The persistent are much more attached to points high in the decision tree than to minor ones lower down, while the obstinate spray "don't give up" indiscriminately over the whole tree. 在退化的情况下，它们是无法区分的：当只有一种方法可以解决问题时，你唯一的选择就是是否放弃，而坚持和顽固都说不。这大概就是为什么在大众文化中，两者经常被混淆的原因。它假设问题简单。但是，当问题变得越来越复杂时，我们可以看到它们之间的区别。 坚持的人更倾向于关注决策树的高层节点，而顽固的人则不分青红皂白地在整个决策树上喷洒“不要放弃”的态度。 The persistent are attached to the goal. The obstinate are attached to their ideas about how to reach it. 坚持的人专注于目标。顽固的人则执着于他们关于如何达到目标的想法。 Worse still, that means they'll tend to be attached to their first ideas about how to solve a problem, even though these are the least informed by the experience of working on it. So the obstinate aren't merely attached to details, but disproportionately likely to be attached to wrong ones. 更糟糕的是，这意味着他们往往会固守最初的问题解决方案，即便这些方案最缺乏对问题实际工作经验的指导。因此，顽固的人不仅仅会纠结于细节，而且极有可能固守错误的方案。 Why are they like this? Why are the obstinate obstinate? One possibility is that they're overwhelmed. They're not very capable. They take on a hard problem. They're immediately in over their head. So they grab onto ideas the way someone on the deck of a rolling ship might grab onto the nearest handhold. 他们为什么会这样？为什么顽固的人会如此顽固？一种可能是他们感到力不从心。他们能力不是很强。他们面对一个难题。他们立刻就感到力有未逮。于是他们像在颠簸的船上的人一样，紧紧抓住最近的扶手。 That was my initial theory, but on examination it doesn't hold up. If being obstinate were simply a consequence of being in over one's head, you could make persistent people become obstinate by making them solve harder problems. But that's not what happens. If you handed the Collisons an extremely hard problem to solve, they wouldn't become obstinate. If anything they'd become less obstinate. They'd know they had to be open to anything. 这是我最初的理论，但经过检验，它站不住脚。如果顽固仅仅是能力不足的结果，你可以通过让坚持不懈的人解决更难的问题来使他们变得顽固。但事实并非如此。如果你给 Collisons 一个极难解决的问题，他们不会变得顽固。如果有什么变化的话，他们会变得更不顽固。他们会知道他们必须对任何可能性持开放态度。 这这是我最初的理论，但检验后发现并不成立。如果固执仅仅是因为能力不足的后果，那么可以让那些持之以恒的人去解决更难的问题，使他们变得固执。但这并不是实际情况。如果你给 Collisons 一个极其困难的问题去解决，他们并不会变得固执。如果有的话，他们反而会变得更不固执。他们会知道必须对任何可能性持开放态度。 注：Collisons 在这里可能是指具体的人名，但在中文中直接使用可能不常见，因此保留原文。如果需要翻译，可能需要根据具体上下文确定适当的中文名称。 Similarly, if obstinacy were caused by the situation, the obstinate would stop being obstinate when solving easier problems. But they don't. And if obstinacy isn't caused by the situation, it must come from within. It must be a feature of one's personality. 同样，如果固执是由情境造成的，那么在解决更简单的问题时，固执的人就不会再固执。但事实并非如此。如果固执不是由情境造成的，那它一定源自人的内心。一定是人格特征的一部分。 Obstinacy is a reflexive resistance to changing one's ideas. This is not identical with stupidity, but they're closely related. A reflexive resistance to changing one's ideas becomes a sort of induced stupidity as contrary evidence mounts. And obstinacy is a form of not giving up that's easily practiced by the stupid. You don't have to consider complicated tradeoffs; you just dig in your heels. It even works, up to a point. 固执是一种对改变自己想法的反射性抵抗。这并不等同于愚蠢，但两者紧密相关。对改变自己想法的反射性抵抗随着相反证据的增加，变成了一种诱发的愚蠢。而固执是一种不放弃的形式，很容易被愚蠢的人实践。你不必考虑复杂的权衡；你只需坚持己见。在某种程度上，这甚至奏效。 The fact that obstinacy works for simple problems is an important clue. Persistence and obstinacy aren't opposites. The relationship between them is more like the relationship between the two kinds of respiration we can do: aerobic respiration, and the anaerobic respiration we inherited from our most distant ancestors. Anaerobic respiration is a more primitive process, but it has its uses. When you leap suddenly away from a threat, that's what you're using. 固执在简单问题上奏效的事实是一个重要的线索。坚持和固执并不是对立的。它们之间的关系更像是我们能够进行的两种呼吸方式之间的关系：有氧呼吸和我们从最远古祖先那里继承来的无氧呼吸。无氧呼吸是一个更原始的过程，但它有其用途。当你突然从威胁中跳开时，你用的就是这个。 The optimal amount of obstinacy is not zero. It can be good if your initial reaction to a setback is an unthinking "I won't give up," because this helps prevent panic. But unthinking only gets you so far. The further someone is toward the obstinate end of the continuum, the less likely they are to succeed in solving hard problems. [4] 适当的固执程度并非为零。如果你对挫折的最初反应是不假思索的“我不会放弃”，这其实是有好处的，因为这有助于防止恐慌。但仅仅不假思索只能让你走这么远。一个人在固执连续体上越靠后，他们成功解决难题的可能性就越小。[4] Obstinacy is a simple thing. Animals have it. But persistence turns out to have a fairly complicated internal structure. 固执是一件简单的事情。动物也有。但坚持却呈现出相当复杂的内部结构。 One thing that distinguishes the persistent is their energy. At the risk of putting too much weight on words, they persist rather than merely resisting. They keep trying things. Which means the persistent must also be imaginative. To keep trying things, you have to keep thinking of things to try. 区分持之以恒的人的一个特点是他们的精力。冒着言过其实的风险，他们坚持而不是仅仅抵抗。他们不断尝试事物。这意味着持之以恒的人也必须富有想象力。要不断尝试事物，你必须不断想到要尝试的事物。 Energy and imagination make a wonderful combination. Each gets the best out of the other. Energy creates demand for the ideas produced by imagination, which thus produces more, and imagination gives energy somewhere to go. [5] 精力和想象力结合在一起，会产生奇妙的效果。它们彼此激发，相得益彰。精力对想象力产生的想法产生需求，从而激发更多的想法，而想象力则为精力指明了方向。 [5] Merely having energy and imagination is quite rare. But to solve hard problems you need three more qualities: resilience, good judgement, and a focus on some kind of goal. 仅仅拥有精力和想象力已经很罕见了。但要解决难题，还需要三种品质：韧性、良好的判断力和对某种目标的专注。 Resilience means not having one's morale destroyed by setbacks. Setbacks are inevitable once problems reach a certain size, so if you can't bounce back from them, you can only do good work on a small scale. But resilience is not the same as obstinacy. Resilience means setbacks can't change your morale, not that they can't change your mind. 韧性意味着不会因挫折而丧失士气。一旦问题达到一定规模，挫折就不可避免，所以如果你无法从中恢复，就只能在小范围内做好工作。但韧性并不等同于顽固。韧性意味着挫折不能改变你的士气，而不是说它们不能改变你的想法。 Indeed, persistence often requires that one change one's mind. That's where good judgement comes in. The persistent are quite rational. They focus on expected value. It's this, not recklessness, that lets them work on things that are unlikely to succeed. 事实上，坚持往往需要一个人改变主意。这就是判断力的体现。坚持不懈的人非常理性。他们关注预期价值。正是这一点，而不是鲁莽，让他们能够从事那些不太可能成功的事情。 There is one point at which the persistent are often irrational though: at the very top of the decision tree. When they choose between two problems of roughly equal expected value, the choice usually comes down to personal preference. Indeed, they'll often classify projects into deliberately wide bands of expected value in order to ensure that the one they want to work on still qualifies. 然而，坚持不懈的人常常在决策树的最顶端表现出非理性：当他们要在两个预期价值大致相等的问题之间做出选择时，选择通常归结为个人偏好。事实上，为了确保他们想要从事的项目仍然符合条件，他们经常会将项目归类到预期价值的故意宽泛的范围内。 (Note: The original text seems to be discussing a specific context or behavior that isn't fully clear without additional context. The translation provided is a direct and literal as possible, given the information provided.) Empirically this doesn't seem to be a problem. It's ok to be irrational near the top of the decision tree. One reason is that we humans will work harder on a problem we love. But there's another more subtle factor involved as well: our preferences among problems aren't random. When we love a problem that other people don't, it's often because we've unconsciously noticed that it's more important than they realize. 从经验上看，这似乎不成问题。在决策树的顶端非理性也无妨。其中一个原因是，我们人类会对自己热爱的问题投入更多努力。但还有一个更微妙的因素：我们对问题的偏好并非随机。当我们热爱一个问题而其他人不热爱时，往往是因为我们下意识地注意到这个问题比他们意识到的更重要。 Which leads to our fifth quality: there needs to be some overall goal. If you're like me you began, as a kid, merely with the desire to do something great. In theory that should be the most powerful motivator of all, since it includes everything that could possibly be done. But in practice it's not much use, precisely because it includes too much. It doesn't tell you what to do at this moment. 这就引出了我们的第五个特质： 必须有一个总体目标。如果你和我一样， 你小时候，只是怀着一个 想要做出伟大的事情的愿望。理论上，这应该是最强大的动力， 因为它涵盖了所有可能做的事情。但实际上，它并没有多大用处， 正是因为它涵盖的太多了。它没有告诉你这一刻该做什么。 (Translation in Simplified Chinese) 这就引出了我们的第五个特质：必须有一个总体目标。如果你和我一样，你小时候，只是怀着一个想要做出伟大的事情的愿望。理论上，这应该是最强大的动力，因为它涵盖了所有可能做的事情。但实际上，它并没有多大用处，正是因为它涵盖的太多了。它没有告诉你这一刻该做什么。 So in practice your energy and imagination and resilience and good judgement have to be directed toward some fairly specific goal. Not too specific, or you might miss a great discovery adjacent to what you're searching for, but not too general, or it won't work to motivate you. [6] 所以在实践中，你的精力、想象力、 韧性和良好的判断力 必须朝着某个相当具体的目标努力。 但也不能太具体，否则你可能会错过 与你正在寻找的东西相邻的伟大发现， 但也不能太宽泛，否则无法激励你。 [6] 在实际中，你的能量、想象力、 韧性和良好判断力 必须用于某个相当具体的目标。 但不能太具体，否则可能会错过 与你寻找的目标相邻的重大发现， 也不能太宽泛，否则无法激励你。 [6] 注：这里提供了两种翻译，第一种是直译，第二种是意译，更符合中文表达习惯。 When you look at the internal structure of persistence, it doesn't resemble obstinacy at all. It's so much more complex. Five distinct qualities — energy, imagination, resilience, good judgement, and focus on a goal — combine to produce a phenomenon that seems a bit like obstinacy in the sense that it causes you not to give up. But the way you don't give up is completely different. Instead of merely resisting change, you're driven toward a goal by energy and resilience, through paths discovered by imagination and optimized by judgement. You'll give way on any point low down in the decision tree, if its expected value drops sufficiently, but energy and resilience keep pushing you toward whatever you chose higher up. 当你观察毅力的内部结构时，它根本不像顽固。它要复杂得多。五种不同的品质——活力、想象力、韧性、良好的判断力和目标专注——结合在一起产生了一种现象，这种现象在某种程度上类似于顽固，因为它使你不会放弃。但你不会放弃的方式完全不同。 而不是仅仅抵抗变化，你被能量和韧性驱动，朝着目标前进，通过想象力发现的路径，并由判断力优化。如果决策树中较低点的期望价值足够降低，你会在任何一点上让步，但能量和韧性会不断推动你朝着在更高层级上选择的方向前进。 Considering what it's made of, it's not surprising that the right kind of stubbornness is so much rarer than the wrong kind, or that it gets so much better results. Anyone can do obstinacy. Indeed, kids and drunks and fools are best at it. Whereas very few people have enough of all five of the qualities that produce right kind of stubbornness, but when they do the results are magical. 考虑到它的构成，正确的固执比错误的固执稀有得多，而且能产生更好的结果，这并不奇怪。任何人都可以做到顽固。事实上，小孩、醉汉和傻瓜最擅长这个。然而，很少有人拥有产生正确固执所需的五种品质，但当他们拥有的时候，结果是神奇的。 考虑到它由什么构成，正确的固执比错误的固执少得多并不奇怪，或者它能产生如此好的结果。任何人都可以做到固执。事实上，孩子、醉汉和傻瓜最擅长这个。然而，很少有人拥有产生正确固执所需的全部五种品质，但当他们确实拥有的时候，结果是神奇的。 注：为了更准确地表达原文意思，我稍微调整了翻译的语序和用词。在中文中，这样的调整可以使句子更加流畅自然。 Notes 笔记 [1] I'm going to use "persistent" for the good kind of stubborn and "obstinate" for the bad kind, but I can't claim I'm simply following current usage. Conventional opinion barely distinguishes between good and bad kinds of stubbornness, and usage is correspondingly promiscuous. I could have invented a new word for the good kind, but it seemed better just to stretch "persistent." 我用“持之以恒”来表示好的固执， 用“顽固”来表示不好的固执， 但我不能说我只是在遵循当前的用法。 常见的观点几乎不会区分 好的和坏的固执， 相应地，用法也相当混乱。 我本可以为好的那种固执 创造一个新词， 但似乎更好的做法是 只是将“持之以恒”这个词的含义扩展一下。 (Note: The translation provided is a direct translation and may not fully capture the nuances of the original text due to differences in language and culture.) [2] There are some domains where one can succeed by being obstinate. Some political leaders have been notorious for it. But it won't work in situations where you have to pass external tests. And indeed the political leaders who are famous for being obstinate are famous for getting power, not for using it well. [2] 有些领域，顽固可以让人成功。一些政治领导人就因此臭名昭著。但在必须通过外部测试的情况下，这就行不通了。事实上，那些以顽固著称的政治领导人之所以出名，是因为他们获取权力，而不是善于运用权力。 [3] There will be some resistance to turning the rudder of a persistent person, because there's some cost to changing direction. [3] 改变一个固执的人的方向舵会遇到一些阻力，因为改变方向会有一些成本。 [4] The obstinate do sometimes succeed in solving hard problems. One way is through luck: like the stopped clock that's right twice a day, they seize onto some arbitrary idea, and it turns out to be right. Another is when their obstinacy cancels out some other form of error. For example, if a leader has overcautious subordinates, their estimates of the probability of success will always be off in the same direction. So if he mindlessly says "push ahead regardless" in every borderline case, he'll usually turn out to be right. 固执的人有时确实能解决难题。一种情况是靠运气：就像停了的钟一天会准两次，他们抓住某个随意的想法，结果这个想法是正确的。另一种情况是他们的固执抵消了其他形式的错误。例如，如果一个领导者的下属过于谨慎，他们对成功概率的估计总是会偏向同一方向。 因此，如果他在每一個邊緣案例中都不假思索地說「無論如何都要推進」，他通常會證明自己是對的。 [5] If you stop there, at just energy and imagination, you get the conventional caricature of an artist or poet. [5] 如果你只停留在能量和想像力上，你會得到一個常見的藝術家或詩人的刻板印象。 [6] Start by erring on the small side. If you're inexperienced you'll inevitably err on one side or the other, and if you err on the side of making the goal too broad, you won't get anywhere. Whereas if you err on the small side you'll at least be moving forward. Then, once you're moving, you expand the goal. 从偏向小目标开始。如果你缺乏经验，你必然会偏向于某一方，如果你的目标定得太大，你将一无所获。而如果你偏向于小目标，你至少会有所前进。然后，一旦你开始行动，你就可以扩大目标。 Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Jackie McDonough, Courtenay Pipkin, Harj Taggar, and Garry Tan for reading drafts of this. 感谢 Trevor Blackwell、Jessica Livingston、Jackie McDonough、Courtenay Pipkin、Harj Taggar 和 Garry Tan 阅读本文的草稿。 |