#39 Tyler Cowen: Thinking About Thinking
55:50 Share

我只会定期阅读少数几个网站。其中一个是由我的下一位嘉宾泰勒·科恩创办的 MarginalRevolution.com。除了主持世界上最受欢迎的经济博客之一，泰勒还是乔治梅森大学的经济学教授，纽约时报的常规专栏作家，以及《平均已过》和《自满阶层》等十多本书的作者。如此多产的嘉宾，我们讨论了很多内容。在这一集中，我们讨论了： 劳动的未来将与今天截然不同，我们可以做些什么来为我们的生计做好准备 虚拟现实的利弊及其对社会的影响 报纸的命运以及信息将如何越来越多地根据我们的口味和偏好“捆绑” 世界的种族关系，以及在许多方面我们已经采取了令人沮丧的倒退步骤 我们如何与物理世界失去联系，以及一些表明我们可能会经历艰难时光的症状 泰勒建议如何改善决策，以及在未来几年这一技能将多么重要（和稀有） 泰勒对父母的建议，如何在孩子身上培养韧性、坚韧和内在驱动力 泰勒的“震撼书籍”和他多年来发展出的阅读过程，使他保持敏锐 为什么把书作为礼物可能是危险的 每个人在谷歌任何东西之前应该具备的技能是什么 作为孩子时参加竞争性国际象棋教会了泰勒什么，以及他今天如何思考和看待世界 还有更多，包括泰勒对最低工资、比特币和他最喜欢的电视节目的一些看法。如果你想提升你的思维，以便为在我们眼前迅速发展的勇敢新世界做好准备，你绝对不想错过这一迷人的节目。   会员专区：会员可提前访问，无广告的节目，手工编辑的文字记录，可搜索的文字记录，仅限会员的节目等。请访问：https://fs.blog/membership/   每周日，我们的通讯分享永恒的见解和想法，供您在工作和家庭中使用。将其添加到您的收件箱：https://fs.blog/newsletter/   在推特上关注香农：https://twitter.com/ShaneAParrish </context> <raw_text>0 我不知道有人能思考得很好。

我今天的嘉宾是经济学家和纽约时报畅销书作者泰勒·科恩。他的博客 marginalrevolution.com 是世界上阅读最多的经济博客之一，也是我定期访问以获取知识和见解的地方。在这次对话中，我们谈到了“平均已过”，技术如何帮助和伤害我们，虚拟旅游，报纸的未来，我们如何变得更加自满，以及更多。我希望你能像我一样享受这个节目。♪

宜家商业网络现在向小企业和企业家开放。今天免费加入，获取室内设计服务，帮助您充分利用工作空间，员工福利，帮助您和您的团队成长，以及旅行、保险、宜家购买、送货等的惊人折扣。今天免费注册宜家商业网络，将您的小企业提升到一个新水平，搜索宜家商业网络即可。

我喜欢你的书《平均已过》。你能解释一下这个短语的含义及其影响吗？《平均已过》既是一本关于现在的书，也是一本关于未来的书。它指的是一个在工人之间存在根本分歧的世界。计算机是否提高了你的生产力，在这种情况下你会做得很好？还是你在与计算机和智能软件竞争，在这种情况下你可能会失败？

所以，我建议这在世界上已经是事实，并且越来越多地会是这样的，你要么获得那些必要的技能和才能，要么就没有。这有时被认为是一个相当悲观的预后，但我实际上认为这个世界会有一些人们没有意识到的积极特征。

因此，由于自动化和智能软件，世界将变得更加高效。这将为我们提供大量免费的消费品。因此，在收入方面，我们将有一个非常明显的贫富差距。但在实际消费方面，穷人会比我们预期的做得更好。所以这是一个关于我们前进方向的混合悲观和乐观的信息。我们能否对此进行深入探讨？你认为哪些工作会失去？

失去的是什么？哪些人会受益，我们现在可以做些什么来更好地为自己定位？想想老式制造业工作。你在工厂工作。你不需要大学教育。有时你甚至不需要高中教育。你必须努力工作并全力以赴。但这些工作建立了一个对美国来说很重要的中产阶级。但这大多是过去的时代。

因此，如果你考虑当前和未来的工作，你需要与信息技术合作，你需要与软件合作。这些技术总是在变化。因此，你需要每三到五年重新培训自己。重新培训自己对很多人来说是非常困难的。所以你需要的技能是...

是许多你在大学里从未学到但不得不自己学习的东西，然后你需要保持最新。因此，具有非常强的职业道德、非常尽责的人将在这个新环境中表现得非常好。擅长技术的人，另一组会做得很好的是那些拥有出色人际交往能力的人。因此，销售、市场营销和管理总是有空间，包括在遥远的未来。计算机不会很快为我们做这些事情。

我认为对于一个人来说，实用的建议是，你需要问自己，我是一个技术型的人，还是一个销售、市场营销、说服管理型的人？如果你能同时成为两者，那就更好了。你知道，像马克·扎克伯格那样的人。那么，当然，你会做得非常非常好。但在大多数情况下，我认为这就是就业市场的方向。你认为我们销售东西的方式会改变吗？

当然，吸引每个人的注意力要困难得多，尤其是那些高收入的人，因为他们的时间需求太多。但你的电子邮件流、推特、脸书、短信，这只是开始。你知道，虚拟现实可能会到来。电视比以往任何时候都要好得多。

所以这是一个竞争更加激烈的环境。当然，许多媒体公司已经失去了市场。因此，它奖励那些在某种程度上真实、专注或能够针对小众市场并做一些真正有趣的事情的人。你在电视上看到这一点。比如，什么是最好的节目？它们并不完全是主流产品。它们反映了某种导演或创作者的个人视角，比如《黑道家族》或《火线》。

它们有某种文化货币，但你不能再随便发布低质量的内容了。你知道，这不是1974年。你不再只是试图填满广播频道。你认为这在文化层面和国家层面会有什么影响？

我会处理国家层面，然后问你文化层面的意思。我认为国家以及国家内部的地区，我们不会看到太多的趋同。我们会看到很多的分歧。因此，在战后时代，美国的贫困城市基本上在追赶富裕城市。但如今，比如路易斯安那州和密西西比州的贫困地区，他们并没有追赶硅谷，反而在某种程度上落后了。

我认为这将是未来的趋势。你会得到这些创造力的集群，人们互动，租金非常高，许多人想住在那里，但并不是每个人都能负担得起。你要么在这些集群中，要么不在。所以你可以称之为区域性的，平均已过。世界的一些地方，如东欧

你知道，波兰可能正在追赶西方，但大部分地区正在被人口稀少化，正在空心化。基本上，它将永远无法追赶。这是一个严酷的觉醒。这是一种冲击，因为经济学家曾预测，如果你放开这些经济体，它们将趋同。我们没有看到这种情况发生。那么你能多告诉我一些你所说的文化吗？好吧，文化，我的意思是如果我们有更多的闲暇时间，或者我们有更多的时间去探索艺术。这将如何改变文化，其影响又将是什么？如果我们再加上一点，几乎像城市国家竞争富裕资源的人们，而人们不一定以往那样有物理接触。

我担心一些面对面创造性互动的未来。因此，我正在曼哈顿的一家酒店房间进行这次采访，而曼哈顿变得如此昂贵。大多数艺术家、作家，他们不再住在这里，除非他们已经非常成功。因此，虽然一些集群迁移到了布鲁克林，但布鲁克林的好地方，甚至可居住的地方，现在也变得相当昂贵。

所以我认为聚集艺术人才是有好处的，而我们正在失去其中一些。旧金山市中心，抛开科技，我不确定在艺术上它是否是一个如此有创造力的地方。它的成本太高了。所以我认为这是一个巨大的损失。最大的收获就是获取一切的便利。

所以你提到有更多时间用于文化。我们确实有些许更多的时间，但我认为真正的收获是我们不需要花费太多时间去接触文化。因此，如果我想听一首歌，我会去 Spotify 或 YouTube。真的只需要几秒钟。如果我想观看 Netflix 的流媒体，你不必像以前那样外出参与文化活动。

因此，你可以装入更多。在某种程度上，质量较低，因为现场表演减少了，但信息更密集，你知道的事情也更多。我认为这就是我们文化生活的现在和未来。

你如何看待虚拟旅游的利弊？比如戴上耳机在梵蒂冈四处走动和实际去梵蒂冈以不同方式体验之间的区别？我必须承认，在这个问题上我仍然是个老顽固。

可能是我还没有看到这个产品。但在我拥有智能手机之前，我想，这将会很棒。我在第一天就买了 iPhone。虚拟现实，我担心它会让我头晕。我担心它会替代其他类型的体验。所以我并不期待这样做。我可能会这样做，以便我可以写关于它的文章并思考它。也许结果真的很美妙。

在我目前的生活中，我能够花大约四分之一到三分之一的时间在路上，去很多不同的地方。我对此感到相当满意。但如果我生病了，躺在床上，81岁，虚拟旅游可能会是一个相当美好的事情。

你认为这仅限于旅游，还是你认为如果你展望未来，我们是否会创造一个人们居住的虚拟世界，可能比其他人生产力低？那是他们的娱乐形式。我想有一部迪士尼电影是关于这个的，比如《机器人总动员》之类的。是的，有很多电影朝这个方向发展。你知道，我认为带宽仍然是一个问题。因此，虚拟世界要有趣，它们必须相当丰富。

你知道，我们正在进行 Skype 通话，但我们甚至没有发送彼此的图像，因为这可能会干扰或影响 Skype 通话的质量。因此，如果仅仅是我的脸就会对正常宽带连接的 Skype 造成问题，你不得不想，虚拟现实的良好连接距离便宜使用的连接还有多远？我没有这个问题的答案。

有人说杀手应用将是某种虚拟性爱，无论是与机器人还是远程的人。这对我来说很难判断。我认为我的直觉是，人们比你想象的更喜欢简单、无聊的东西。人们就是喜欢在 Facebook 上花时间，来回发送短小、愚蠢或不太有信息量的消息。

这已经成为许多事情的杀手应用。这占据了我们更多的时间，而不是那些真正令人兴奋和鼓舞的东西。所以我不知道。我认为我们还不知道。我知道许多美国人，现在他们可以负担得起一次去中美洲的实惠旅行，但他们甚至没有护照。所以让我们记住这一点。

我想是《平均已过》，我引用了这句话，因为我想把它读给你，但我忘了我从哪本书中提取的。你说，在今天的全球经济中，价值将流向稀缺的东西，而稀缺的东西包括：优质土地和自然资源，知识产权是关于应该生产什么的好主意，以及具有独特技能的优质劳动力。

是的。当你思考这个问题时……我会坚持这些话。自从你写下这些话以来，它有演变吗？嗯，它变得更加极端。因此，顶级城市的土地价格，包括伦敦和巴黎，一直在上涨。顶级收入者有越来越多的全球市场可以出口。你知道，我说他们好。但仍然...

过去的日子，如果你有一款畅销产品，你可能会将其销售到西欧，也许是日本。这已被一个全球环境所取代，你可以向来自100多个国家的数十亿人销售。这确实会增加对稀缺因素的奖励。你认为是否有一种趋势是远离国家报纸，更多地关注地方新闻？

我认为这两者都有所减少。正如你所知，年轻人不再经常阅读报纸。他们可能会通过 Facebook 或推特或电子邮件推荐阅读报纸的文章。但这与阅读报纸并不相同。我认为你无法通过广告资助大多数报纸。我认为它们最终会成为由非常富有的人拥有或支持的企业。

我认为《纽约时报》和《华尔街日报》会盈利。我对我的雇主彭博社非常满意。我为彭博社撰写观点。但我们所知道的报纸，我认为大多数已经消失或即将消失。

你认为会有什么取代它们，还是你认为没有什么会取代它们？我不会说没有。我认为我们的日常信息流正在取代它们。日常信息流再次包含一些来自报纸的内容。会有很多地方报道在博客或类似博客的实体上，如果你想找到它，它会在那里。因此，如果你揭露了某个地方官员的丑闻，世界会知道。我对此相对乐观，但我不明白为什么你应该把所有内容捆绑在一起。

比如分类广告、体育版、地方新闻、国际新闻。谁真的想要这样的捆绑？想想看，这总是很疯狂。从某种意义上说，谢天谢地，我们已经从中走出来，进入了对用户更高效的东西。我不想要那个捆绑。这就是为什么我喜欢五本书捆绑在一起，除非是五卷套装，五本不同的书。不，我选择我想要的书。新闻也是如此。这是很自然的。

你还写了一本名为《自满阶层》的书，强调了许多正在发生的变化，这些变化引起了很多关注，但我们对这些变化的反应却被忽视。你能详细说明这些变化是什么，以及我们今天看似良好的意图的决定可能不会产生预期效果吗？

好吧，自满阶层背后的关键思想是，美国人变得相当厌恶风险。他们在全国范围内的流动率大大降低。他们对如何抚养孩子变得更加偏执。他们的自我药疗率更高。我们的经济流动性较低。从许多不同的指标来看，它的动态性较差。生产力增长率在科技行业之外一直在下降。

因此，很多决定选择安定、安全和舒适，都是个体理性的。安全是好的，对吧？压力是坏事。但当我们的社会集体做出这个决定时，我们在某种程度上都变得更糟，因为我们生活在一个动态性较低的国家。我们的经济增长率较慢。很难负担联邦预算。我们最终会陷入混乱的政治。

这些是自满阶层的基本主题。我们也变得更加隔离吗？如果你指的是种族隔离的城市或更种族隔离的郊区，那就是一个复杂的故事。但国家的许多地方正在以我认为令人沮丧的方式变得更加种族隔离。让我觉得奇怪的是，变化的速度，至少在感知上，似乎加快了。我不知道生活在1900年代或之前是什么样的。

尽管加速，我们却变得更加抵抗变化。你能详细说明一下吗？好吧，我认为它并没有加速。想想我的祖母，她出生于20世纪初。

大多数人没有完成高中教育。没有抗生素。你知道，真的没有疫苗。人们没有汽车。无线电还没有被发明。飞行不是人们所做的事情。你可以继续列举下去。

然后快进50年，当她在1950年代50岁时，所有这些事情都完全不同。美国的物理面貌与我们现在的美国并没有太大不同。因此，每个领域、每件事都发生了变化。现在，我56岁。如果我想想我现在的生活与我小时候的生活相比，你知道，五岁时，计算机是一个巨大的变化，但其他很多事情。

你知道，我住在一栋50年前的房子里。我在一个相当旧的厨房里做饭。这不是问题。我并不觉得我真的错过了什么。我的车比50年前的车更安全、更好，但它看起来仍然像一辆车。

来自那个时代的人可以驾驶今天的汽车。今天的人可以驾驶那个时代的汽车，甚至不需要任何新的建议或说明。因此，在这个国家的许多地方，变化已经放缓。- 你认为这部分是因为有很多值得高兴的事情吗？- 有很多值得高兴的事情。我们耗尽了许多将化石燃料与强大机器、电力和通信结合的低垂果实。这一切都是好的。

但我们现在进入了一个人们很难想象与现在截然不同的未来的世界。当人们谈论进步时，他们的意思是像城市更新、更多好的餐馆、你知道，稍微更高的安全水平。如果你阅读战后时代的科幻小说，人们想象这些截然不同的未来，通常是乌托邦式的。今天的科幻小说往往是反乌托邦的。

在个人层面上，我的意思是，这些似乎是有道理的，但当你将视野扩大到社区和国家时，你预见到的影响是什么？好吧，如果你去中国，中国是一个非常不自满的社会。它的经济增长率在6%到8%之间，波动性更大，压力更大。在中国生活要困难得多。空气污染水平更高。

因此，综合考虑，在任何给定的日子里，你会更愿意生活在一个自满的社会。但话虽如此，一个国家不能永远保持自满。我认为最终，你知道，总会有一些事情需要改变。你需要再次获得活力。你开始看到你自满生活中的一些干扰。我认为在美国政治中，我们已经看到了一些这些干扰，曾经认为不可能发生的事情正在发生。

特朗普现象，显然。因此，自满是美好的，当你可以永远保持它时，但这从来不是一个真正的选择，不是对美国而言。你看到的其他一些事情是什么，表明存在裂痕？好吧，全球舞台上美国霸权的丧失，我认为是头号问题。

因此，我们现在生活在一个G-Zero的世界。美国无法主导世界事务。我们试图重建伊拉克完全失败，结果证明是一个巨大的错误。

其他国家，你知道，会按照他们自己的意愿行事，比如在叙利亚、伊朗或俄罗斯，他们不会太在意我们。因此，再次，在任何给定的日子里，这可能看起来并不那么糟糕。但随着我们的影响力逐渐减弱，我认为我们会发现，几十年后，这可能会非常灾难性。你认为这成为生活的自然秋千吗？我们开始失去我们的地位，这创造了一种紧迫感，从而使我们复苏，然后

这是一个自然的过程，还是一种不同的周期？我认为这是一个自然过程，但复苏的过程可能非常动荡、非常痛苦、非常破坏性。如果你整体看美国历史，我们有些不光彩的历史。我们有80年代和90年代的那些十年，我们有如此多的胜利和成就，感觉如此美好。犯罪率下降。

在国际上，共产主义或多或少消失了。我们习惯于那些十年，但它们并不是我们的历史常态。也许在某些方面，我们正在回到19世纪末的美国，政治极化，媒体混乱，

在某些方面暴力水平更高，动态性也更强。就像我说的，我个人宁愿生活在一个更自满的社会，但我也意识到这不能持续。- 你在那本书中提到的另一件事是，我们越来越多地与物理世界脱节

不仅仅是通过亚马逊，能够呆在家里，洗衣服不必外出，但我认为你提到了一些对物理建筑的影响。你能详细说明一下吗？好吧，我们或多或少停止了基础设施建设。因此，在纽约市，地铁线路的显著部分仍然是1930年代或40年代的状态，比如信号系统，它们仍在使用。它们仍然有效，这很好。这证明了我们祖先的创造力。

但这表明我们正在让物理世界衰退，桥梁和道路我们并没有真正维护或建造足够的新道路。人们更喜欢住在1920年代、30年代或50年代的房子里，而不是现在建造的房子。

你知道，没有人会更喜欢那个早期时代的电话。因此，在建筑和重塑我们的空间方面，我们在某种程度上已经放弃，或者在某些方面甚至倒退。出行比以前花费的时间更长。交通拥堵。我们在这个国家的任何地方都没有真正解决这个问题。基本上只是变得更糟。我认为这些是美国心理某些部分内心病态的迹象。

你认为这些问题应该由政府解决，还是说，拿汽车和交通问题来说。这是一个自我解决的问题吗？因为我们知道，在接下来的20年里，自驾车的出现概率很高。我们可以合理地假设这将缓解一些交通问题，也许不会修复道路，但，

这个问题现在值得解决吗？或者你会如何不同地看待这个问题？好吧，我会让政府在高峰时段对道路定价，或者在某些地方，比如曼哈顿，几乎可以全天定价。一个令人鼓舞的迹象是，在华盛顿以外，通往弗吉尼亚的66号公路，现在正在收费，在高峰时段，收费可能高达30或40美元。这听起来很糟糕。

但没有收费，你根本无法使用这条路。它只是一个巨大的停车场。因此，伦敦对进入市中心的交通实施了拥堵收费。这是有效的。新加坡对其道路实施了拥堵收费。它们有效。在这个国家，我们需要做同样的事情。自驾车可能会使问题变得更糟，因为你会让你的车或车辆去做各种差事。哦，去全食超市给我买些熏三文鱼。我饿了。

路上的人可能会减少，但在场的人可能会面临更慢的交通。而且建造新道路是非常困难的。需要环境审查。有业主团体。在美国的许多地方，这非常非常困难。我们作为个人如何准备，或者我们应该考虑什么，以应对这种未来的到来？

我们应该做些什么？好吧，我认为未来属于我所称的元理性的人。也就是说，意识到自己局限性的人。因此，并不是所有你认为非常有价值的技能在未来都会重要。不要仅仅感到良好，而是批判性地思考，我实际上擅长什么，能够补充新兴行业和新兴技术。未来的世界，甚至是现在的世界，将是一个算法的世界。

人工智能将告诉你该买什么，如何购买，以及以什么价格购买。认为自己可以战胜算法的人会犯更多错误。因此，知道何时应该推迟。

现在比以往任何时候都更容易从其他人那里获得建议，包括播客，对吧？或者，去 Yelp。你什么时候可以信任他人的建议？在这方面拥有良好的判断力变得比仅仅是最聪明的人或拥有最高智商更为重要。因此，我认为一种认识上的谦逊，正在显示出比以往更高的回报。

在你看来，我们如何培养良好的判断力？我认为拥有值得信赖的人作为你的导师，我的意思是这个词非常广泛，教你不同领域的知识和判断力，这可以通过极端和强烈的在线实验来补充。这是实现的方式。你所说的在线实验是什么意思？真的？

阅读维基百科，创造性地使用谷歌，收听你最喜欢的播客，阅读你最喜欢的博客，花时间拥有一个精彩的推特动态。无论是什么，值得投入时间，并且要多做，因为今天是世界历史上第一次黄金时代。就像互联网文化、互联网学习方式、互联网写作模式。

现在就像1780年代对古典音乐的意义一样。所以享受它。这是不可思议的。我们现在的在线教育是世界上最伟大的成就之一。我们在大约15年内几乎完成了这一切，转变极其迅速。因此，去做吧。但你不能忽视与其他人面对面学习的机会，他们可以指导你、激励你、激发你、引导你。真正能够结合这两者的人会做得很好。是的。

我们如何收集反馈，以意识到自己的局限性？这有两个问题。一个是获得准确的反馈。第二个是让我们的自我退让，允许我们看到它。我们如何

才能在这方面做得更好？- 好吧，我认为今天的反馈比以往任何时候都多。许多工作中，你的表现被测量或可以被测量，这在20或30年前并不真实。如果你是程序员，弄清楚你有多优秀并不难。GitHub，你可以发布你所做的，世界会想要雇佣你，或者他们不会。因此，很多都是心理上的。你如何接受反馈

因为我们都不是那么伟大。生活就是不断被谦卑的体验。因此，你要么感到沮丧，要么被重新激励。我认为学习如何重新激励自己，你总是可以上网看看有人比你更聪明、更好看，或者在健身房能举起更多的重量。无论是什么标准，除非你是马格努斯·卡尔森（Magnus Carlsen）和国际象棋，否则总会有人比你更好。

我只会虔诚地阅读少数几个网站。其中一个是 MarginalRevolution.com，由我的下一位嘉宾泰勒·科文创办。除了主持世界上最受欢迎的经济博客之一，泰勒还是乔治梅森大学的经济学教授，纽约时报的常规专栏作家，以及《平均即过时》和《自满阶层》等十多本书的作者。如此多产的嘉宾，我们讨论的内容自然很多。在这一集中，我们讨论了： 劳动的未来将与今天大相径庭，我们可以做些什么来确保我们的生计不受影响 虚拟现实的利弊及其对社会的影响 报纸的命运以及信息将如何越来越多地根据我们的口味和偏好“捆绑” 世界各地的种族关系，以及在许多方面我们已经采取了令人沮丧的倒退措施 我们如何与物理世界失去联系，以及一些表明我们可能会经历艰难时光的症状 泰勒建议如何改善决策能力，以及在未来几年这一技能的重要性（和稀有性） 泰勒对父母的建议，如何在孩子身上培养韧性、坚韧和内在驱动力 泰勒的“震撼书籍”和他多年来发展出的阅读过程，使他保持敏锐 为什么赠送书籍作为礼物可能是危险的 每个人在谷歌任何东西之前应该具备的唯一技能 作为孩子时参加竞争性国际象棋教会了泰勒关于他今天如何思考和看待世界的道理 还有更多，包括泰勒对最低工资、比特币和他最喜欢的电视节目的看法。如果你想提升你的思维，以便为在我们眼前迅速发展的勇敢新世界做好准备，你绝对不想错过这一迷人的节目。   会员升级：会员可提前访问，无广告集，手工编辑的文字记录，可搜索的文字记录，仅限会员的集等。请注册：https://fs.blog/membership/   每周日，我们的通讯分享永恒的见解和可以在工作和家庭中使用的想法。将其添加到您的收件箱：https://fs.blog/newsletter/   在推特上关注香农：https://twitter.com/ShaneAParrish </context> <raw_text>0 And when knowledge and peer groups were more local in earlier periods of time, that wasn't usually the case. So attitudinally adopting to never being the best

I think is a new tough challenge brought to us by the internet, but I see many people up to it. It can be re-energizing. It's exciting how much new stuff there is to learn. So be more internally motivated, like I want to become something, I aspire to something, and be less like, oh, I'm the best at this, I'm the best at that, because you're not.

As a parent, how did you foster that in your kids? We have one daughter. She is now 28, and she's doing great. I don't really claim credit for her. That credit goes to her. But as a parent, you shape the environment, and you do have some influence. I mean, was there anything that you consciously were doing in terms of building resistance and tenacity and internal motivation?

Other than the platitudes, here's what I recommend. Expose your child in teen years to as many of your friends who might be possible role models as possible. Like at some margin, they're just not going to listen to you anymore. They're not going to watch your behavior anymore. They know what you're about. They've taken from that what they're going to.

Have them meet and spend time with some of your quality friends. Show them new role models. That's what I tell people. Your influence is limited, for better or for worse. I like that. Do you think that we're becoming more specialized in this kind of metarational world, the world of algorithms?

Most people are, but I think there's a countervailing tendency. So we have more managers. Managers almost by definition are generalist. So as more people become more specialized, there's a separate class who become more synthetic and less generalized and more almost like philosophers. The manager is like a philosopher. They need to understand the human condition, what motivates people, which people can work well together, which cannot. Those are very general forms of knowledge. I

I think Charlie Munger said something last year at the Daily Journal meeting that struck with me on this. And he said that most people would be better served by specializing, hyper specializing with 80 to 90% of their time and then using the rest of that time to become a generalist in sort of the big ideas of the world. To what extent would you agree or disagree with that?

I mean, maybe most people, but you know, it's person by person. And for some people it should be 50/50. And certainly at the higher levels, I think generalists are important. If you look at CEOs, several decades ago, most CEOs were people hired from within that sector.

And now CEOs much more often are hired across sectors. So someone who, you know, worked for an oil company would then be hired to run, you know, a manufacturing firm. So that's showing some kinds of knowledge are actually more general. To what extent did those skills transfer significantly?

successfully? Well, the market has rendered the judgment that they transfer more and more. And American companies are pretty well managed. And if you think, well, insiders have some kind of natural advantage in having, you know, an inside track, if companies are more willing to hire these outsiders, I think that's a clear sign.

That executive knowledge is becoming more general in nature, more global, more set of skills about communicating, understanding how politics, global economy, internal management all tie together. Those are somewhat general skills. You do need to understand something about your sector too, though. Let's switch gears a little bit and talk about a subject I've been wanting to talk to you about for years, which is reading. You used to read a few important books. You called them, I think, quake books.

And now you read many more books, almost disposable. Like, why the change? When you're young, it's quite easy to read books that will shake everything you know. And those are the quake books. So for me, you know, a quake book was reading Friedrich A. Hayek. A quake book was reading the early science fiction I read in my life. A quake book was reading John Stuart Mill's autobiography.

And because your worldview is not as formed, books have an incredible influence over you. Then as you get older, say, you know, by the time you hit 40, I don't mean that you never change your mind about things. You're changing your mind all the time.

But it's very hard for something to have the impact, say, like the first time you heard Beethoven or the first time you, you know, picked up Shakespeare. It's just not possible anymore. So you read more history books, you read more biographies, you read more for particular facts, you read for a kind of entry into cultural anthropology of different places or different industrial sectors.

And what reading is changes and books do in a way become more disposable. Like the books I still own are, you know, Homer, Shakespeare, some basic works of economics. And I'm not ever going to give up those books, but they're not necessarily the books I'm reading now. I do reread them sometimes. Do you reread anything you've kind of read in the last five years?

Shakespeare, I reread pretty frequently. That's probably what I reread the most. But any classic work, I'm likely to reread over the course of, say, a 10-year period. So James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, I'm going to reread soon. I probably haven't read it for 20 years, I would guess. What?

What are your rules for reading? I mean, do you read cover to cover? Do you how do you after you pick up a book? What's your process like? Classics, I read cover to cover almost by definition of a classic. Most books I don't finish. Very good books I finish. Maybe one book in 10 I'll finish. But I don't mean that as any slight to the books. You've always got to think.

Well, you know, chapter seven in this book, is it better than starting a new book altogether? So much of my reading now is shaped by my reading for my own podcast series to interview guests. So I just interviewed Matt Levine of Bloomberg and he writes on law and finance. But when he was an undergraduate, he was a classics major. So I reread quite a bit of Horace, you know, the Roman essayist and poet to try to get into the mind of Matt Levine. So

So that, more than anything now, drives my reading, reading to understand other people I'm interviewing. So with a typical nonfiction book, are you reading introductions straight through, or are you flipping around? I flip around. I start the opening 20, 30 pages just to see, should I read this book at all? More than half of all books I get don't pass that test.

Then there's plenty of books I'll read, you know, maybe half of and be quite happy with them, but still want to read something else. And then, you know, a really good book like the new Charles C. Mann book, The Wizard and the Prophets, about the history of debates over the environment. I read all of that. That kept my interest the whole way through. There's certainly still plenty of books like that. Do you...

read mostly in Kindle or physical books? I don't like Kindle. Sometimes when I travel, I need to use it. I can manage with Kindle. I find it hard with Kindle to turn back. And I also remember things better when I think physically what is their place in the book. Maybe that's silly.

But I think, oh, that was like early in the book. And I see where it is in my mind in the book. And I remember it. And I can't do that with Kindle. I have the same thing. It's really weird. I can remember, oh, I think it's like this part of the page, you know, between 70 and 80. But I can't do that at all with the Kindle for some reason. That's a really strange. Do you write in the books? No, what I sometimes do is fold over pages where there's something notable. That's if I own the book, not a library book. And then maybe.

Maybe I'll go back to it, but usually I don't. Just the act of folding over the page helps me remember it. Like, I found that notable, I'm telling myself. And then it sticks with me better. And then I'll, you know, give the book away or throw it out.

A while ago... Be careful about giving books away. If you give a book away, the danger is a person will read it just because it's a gift. Unless you think it's the book they should be reading, it's actually a slightly cruel act to give someone a book. I've had that happen before where I've given people books and they've taken messages out of it. Like I was trying to send them a subtle...

uh yes subtle message that i was never intending to give them like oh you think i'm this neurotic character well i'm sorry yeah that's exactly what happens and it it takes a while for it to come out and it's like hey what happened so giving books away you know it's overrated i think uh

I also get a lot of review copies because I blog, I cover a lot of books. So a typical day I could, you know, five to 10 books could come in the mail and, uh, you know, I, I need some way of dealing with those and I, some I do give away and then there are people, I know them well enough. They trust me. They know my giving them the book signals nothing. And that's just like a beautiful relationship.

I usually take those advanced copies, preview copies, review copies, and chuck them in the lending library right by my house, which probably has, you know, it has more books coming out before they're actually out. People must love being around there. One thing that you said a while ago was that you read fairly quickly and you said to read quickly, you should read a lot. What did you mean by that?

I read nonfiction very quickly. I don't read fiction very quickly. Maybe I read it a little quicker than most people. The more you've read, the more you know what's coming in the books you're reading. So the easier and quicker it is to read them. So like if I read a book now, you know, I'm 56 years old. I started reading when I was three. If someone asks me, well, how long did it take you to read that book? The correct answer is 53 years. It doesn't matter what the book is.

You're bringing to bear your last 53 years of reading on the book. And most of your reading, your understanding results from your prior investment. So that's the way to read well is, you know, stick around on this earth and keep on reading. That's by far the best advice, I think. Keep at it. Stay alive. I like that. What would you say is the way to think well? I don't know anyone who thinks well. Yeah.

I think you wrote a piece a while ago, or I seem to remember this, which is the work required to have an opinion. I think you alluded to writing an article from the point of view of someone else. Yes, there's a basic dilemma from what's called Bayesian statistical theory. Why should you ever hold an independent opinion?

Like on almost any matter, maybe any matter, there's someone out there who knows more about it than you do. So you should, in a sense, just find other people's opinions to copy. But then how do you judge who's the person who knows the most or understands it the best? There's a paradox in that, because if you don't know the right answer, it's hard to judge who is the best judge.

So, one implication is we should just be far less sure about a lot of our opinions. But also, this point I referred to it earlier, the wisdom in knowing how and when to defer is like the key wisdom of 2018, of our time. And this is under-publicized. What do you mean, the wisdom to knowing how to defer or when to defer? Well, you can Google to such a high percentage of the world's information. And again, this is pretty new.

So when you know how to judge the quality of something on the internet, sometimes said, you know, the internet makes smart people smarter and stupid people stupider. So it gets back to average is over. Like which category do you want to be in? Be epistemically modest, but also be a critical reader.

And just having a general knowledge of how to evaluate sources, getting back to being generalist versus specialist. If you're going to be a generalist, one of the best things to be a generalist in is evaluating the quality of sources in your Twitter feed, online, everywhere. That is so important. And it's skyrocketing in significance. Most people, they're not getting that much better at it. How do you think about that? How can we improve our ability to judge people?

I think again it's this triangulation with really good face-to-face people you trust and who know something and then intense use of the internet to like cross-check and investigate things and just kind of bounce back and forth and do that around and around in a circle as much as you can as quickly as you can.

And you get better. And don't think you know it all. You know, if something offends you, don't assume it's wrong. I would also recommend. I'm not saying it's right. But if you dismiss it, you won't learn from it. So try to be able to learn from almost everything. So when you read something that disagrees with your thoughts or opinions, how do you process that information?

I try to be happier about it. It's not always possible. We're all imperfect creatures. But I would say a lot of times I succeed. Overall, I'm more interested in reading books I disagree with than books I agree with. A lot of books I agree with, they could be quite good, but they tend to bore me. And that's one thing about myself I feel good about. Books I agree with tend to bore me. I view that as some kind of like minor, tiny victory I've achieved in life. Yeah.

I think that's a pretty big victory. Do you have a mental state before you read the book as in like, this is my position? And then after a book you maybe disagree with and view how your position has changed?

I don't know. I think I'm more blasé than that. Like there's a pile of books on the floor and probably my wife thinks the pile is too large. But if I put them away, I'll forget where they are. So I want the pile to be smaller. And I'm more focused on very mundane things than like the grand ideological struggle of our time, whatever.

And, you know, to focus more on the mundane things maybe is also helpful for reading the books because you don't get too caught up in being offended or like, oh, I've heard this person isn't like doesn't know this or that. And I can dismiss them. There's an intellectual move which I call devalue and dismiss. And, you know, try not to do devalue and dismiss. You learn much less.

And it's always justified, right? Again, unless it's Magnus Carlsen playing chess or maybe a computer program playing chess, you can always devalue and dismiss. Oh, that person, he didn't understand this event 10 years ago. He or she doesn't know very much. Always possible. Don't do it. Are we doing that to discredit them or relatively position ourself better? I think both, but mostly the latter. Yeah.

People want to feel good about themselves. They want a kind of easy path to virtue, to truth, to feeling in control. We love to feel somewhat in control. Speaking of your wife, I think in one of your books, you brought up fighting with your spouse over a bed or something. And...

I think the context was you like the bed 10% better. And so you fight about it and you win and you're a bit happier, but it costs you a lot because your spouse is unhappier. Can you expand on how we can think about this and how we should bring that to our own relationships?

Well, this gets back to epistemic modesty and not just with your spouse, your children, your friends. But, you know, in fights, both people can't be right all the time. On average, maybe you're right half the time. I would say on average, you're right less than half the time because there's so many fights where both sides are wrong.

So trying to be right or establishing being right or proving being right is usually a mistake. Most of the time you're wrong and it's hard to keep that in mind if you have a disagreement or fight in the workplace. But it's true, most of the time you're wrong in this fight. And if you can carry just like 10% of that realization and internalize a bit of it emotionally, I think you can do a little bit better. No one like can really truly believe that. Like we all actually think we're right.

But you can sneak a little bit of it into your consciousness.

Yes.

Morale is increasingly important in our world. This idea of re-energizing yourself in the face of setbacks. I think it influenced me a lot that I was a chess player very early in life because you learn pretty quickly in chess. You don't really have excuses for losing.

And most of the time you're making the wrong move. Maybe your moves are better than your opponent's, but you go back, you study your game. Like most of your moves are in fact wrong compared to the perfect moves. And I sort of learned that when I was 12 and that's always stuck with me. So that was formative. What age did you start playing chess?

And I quit by about 16. But for about five of those years, I played very intensely and in competitive tournaments and put in a lot of time. And it's one of the biggest things that has shaped how I think. How has that shaped how you think? This idea, again, that most chess moves are mistakes, even if they're made by very good players.

The idea that, you know, you can't blame other people for your own problems, even though some of your problems maybe are their fault. Right. You need to face up to your own imperfections as a player and try to work on them. And that habit is rewarded. And chess is brutal. You talked about, you know, measuring your own results or talent. And chess is this thing in numerical rating and ELO rating. And it really does measure how well you're doing remarkably exactly. Yeah.

And you wake up in the morning and you know where you stand in the pecking order. And you can either be discouraged by that or re-energized. And for as long as I was playing, I was re-energized. At some point, I guess I wasn't re-energized anymore. And it just seemed to me like economics and other social sciences were more interesting than chess. But then I tried to transfer some of my learning techniques from chess to those other areas. What were your learning techniques? How did you go about learning chess?

There was a book written by Alexander Kotov called "How to Think Like a Grandmaster" and it argued like just reading chess books maybe had some use but the really useful thing to do is to try to analyze a game and write out your analysis and then compare that to a really good analysis by a top grandmaster so you could see how rotten yours was. And it suggested you needed to get used to that process emotionally and the people who did that would improve.

And in intellectual spheres, there's the same thing. You want to really figure out what are your mistakes. You're like most of the time not making the best chess move, intellectually speaking. And if you face up to that, you'll improve. If not, at some point, you'll ossify and you can play devalue and dismiss. And there will be people stupider than you or more wrong than you. And you can lord it over them and try to make a career out of that. But again, at some point, you're going to stop improving.

Another way to think about it is the value of compound interest. I refer to it as the value of compound learning. Like just keep on learning. Let the years pile up in your favor. Learn X percent a year. It will compound and stay alive on this earth and

And maybe you'll get somewhere. And part of that learning process is putting yourself out there to opening yourself up to either criticism or other people making your work better. Sure. And just learning from them, like what have they done that has made them, you know, successful or smart or talented? I think the Internet has opened so many doors in that respect. Absolutely.

Would you change the education system to include chess for all students, or how would you go about changing the education system? Gary Kasparov has a foundation devoted to spreading more chess education throughout the world. I think that's a very worthy project. I wouldn't want to make it mandatory for everyone or in all countries, but I think we should have much more of it.

I mean, the good thing, we're living in a world where there are more games and a lot of gamification, and that's mostly a positive development. It doesn't necessarily have to be chess.

Uh, maybe some games they're addictive in bad ways that it's somehow the virtual world of the game that pulls you in rather than the intellectual parts of the game. Uh, but the internet gives you a lot more access to gaming and that's a big positive too. I have to ask you a different question, changing gears a little bit here. And then I want to get to some Twitter questions before we go. But, uh, why do you only watch one TV show at a time? Uh, sometimes it's zero and occasionally it's two just time. I would like to watch more TV. Uh,

The show, The Americans and Westworld are right now the two that we watch. And if neither is running, we're not watching anything. If both are at the same time, we watch both. I love The Sopranos. I'm a big fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Most TV shows bore me. I think movies are actually much better than TV. TV now is a bit overrated and movies underrated. Uh,

But a great TV show is a wonderful thing. You can do it in short bits, do it at home, and you look forward to it all the time. What would be your equivalent of like Quake movies or movies that you absolutely love?

Bergman movies from Sweden, you know, starting in the late 50s, but his entire career, all of those for me were quake movies. Star Wars, I saw the premiere on opening night. I guess that was 1977. I had never seen anything like that. I knew, you know, in the first few minutes, like, I'm a fan of this for life, even though I don't like the recent ones so much. What don't you like about the recent ones?

I think they're okay, but of course they're Disney-fied, both literally and figuratively. They feel less serious. There's so much repetition of themes. The idea of suspense about the story is drained away, and maybe story suspense is just hard to pull off in 2018 with social media.

But like when I saw Empire Strikes Back, the second installment, which I guess now is called Part 5, and when Darth says, Luke, you know, I am your father, everyone watching it was shocked. This was an incredible moment. I don't think we can do that anymore. Like what could they tell you now in installment number, you know, 19 when it comes along that really can have any kind of equivalent meaning? Like, oh, I'm the third cousin of, you know, Darth Sidious. You know, who would care?

And how do you prevent those spoilers if you were to create them in the cinema from reaching you? I don't know how to do that other than by being walled off, which I cannot manage. But I think if you watch a lot more foreign films, they rely less on that kind of revelation. And now is a wonderful time to watch films from South Korea or Iran or Latin America, all sorts of places.

And Hollywood is in a bit of a dry spell. Too many tentpole franchises, too many superhero movies. Black Panther, though, I'm very excited about. I love the preview. I will see it right away. I expect to like it very, very much. I'm excited about that one, too.

One of the questions we got on Twitter was, what do you think about the long-term implications of interest rates being near zero? So anybody who's basically under 40 at this point has never experienced interest rates above, I don't know, 5% or 6% in their lifetime. Yeah.

It's much harder for millennials to save, and I fear they will have impoverished retirements, especially since the fiscal budget on the federal side is problematic as well. I think those rates staying so low is a sign that there's all this wealth out there in the world, Russia, China, but not really that many safe places to put it. They buy US government securities, which is perfectly understandable.

It lowers our rates for reasons which are somewhat artificial. And I don't know that that's going to change soon. The real remedy would be for China, Russia, Argentina to become like truly safe, predictable countries. That seems to me somewhat far away. And so how does that change in terms of a democracy? If you have a large voting block of people who...

who maybe don't save and view the social system as being a safety net now? How do you foresee that playing out over the next 20, 30 years? Well, you become more dependent on foreign capital. The nation is in some regards mortgaging its future. People expect things from governments that governments cannot always deliver upon. And I think it's a very precarious situation. And we have become very, dare I say, complacent about this state of affairs. Ooh. </raw_text>

<context>#39 泰勒·科文：思考思考 我只会虔诚地阅读少数几个网站。其中一个是由我的下一位嘉宾泰勒·科文创办的 MarginalRevolution.com。除了主持世界上最受欢迎的经济博客之一，泰勒还是乔治梅森大学的经济学教授，纽约时报的常规专栏作家，以及《平均即过》和《自满阶层》等十多本书的作者。如此多产的嘉宾，我们讨论的内容自然非常广泛。在这一集中，我们讨论了： 未来的劳动将与今天大相径庭，我们可以做些什么来确保我们的生计不受影响 虚拟现实的利弊及其对社会的影响 报纸的命运以及信息将如何越来越多地根据我们的口味和偏好“捆绑” 世界各地的种族关系，以及在许多方面我们已经采取了令人沮丧的倒退措施 我们如何与物理世界失去联系，以及一些表明我们可能会经历艰难时光的症状 泰勒建议如何改善决策能力，以及在未来几年这一技能的重要性（和稀有性） 泰勒对父母的建议，如何在孩子身上培养韧性、坚韧和内在驱动力 泰勒的“震撼书籍”和他多年来发展出的阅读过程，使他保持敏锐 为什么把书作为礼物可能是危险的 每个人在谷歌任何东西之前应该具备的唯一技能 童年时下棋比赛教会泰勒的关于他今天如何思考和看待世界的事情 还有更多，包括泰勒对最低工资、比特币和他最喜欢的电视节目的一些看法。如果你想提升你的思维，以便为在我们眼前迅速发展的勇敢新世界做好准备，你绝对不想错过这一迷人的节目。   会员升级：会员可提前访问，无广告剧集，手工编辑的文字记录，可搜索的文字记录，仅限会员的剧集等。请注册：https://fs.blog/membership/   每周日，我们的通讯分享永恒的见解和想法，供您在工作和家庭中使用。将其添加到您的收件箱：https://fs.blog/newsletter/   在推特上关注香农：https://twitter.com/ShaneAParrish </context> <raw_text>0 你对最低工资的提高以及对接受这些工资的人和更广泛的经济的影响有什么看法？它们有影响吗？这种影响是什么？最低工资的提高会使人失业。有时失业的人数很少，有时则很多。但我认为工作是非常重要的。我会寻找不同的方法来提高工资，而这确实是我们需要做的。好吧，

生产力。生产力将是解决之道。在我看来——而且生产力是累积的。最低工资的提高不是。它是一次性的。最终，它会被通货膨胀或其他因素侵蚀。你需要一些累积的东西。这又回到了复利的力量，复合学习。如果我看一个政策，我会问，这个政策是否真的涉及某种复合学习？如果没有，它仍然可能是好的，但我可能不会那么热情。是的。

你认为最低工资的提高是否整体上改善了接受者的素质，还是只是净中立，然后劳动力池变小？不，我认为当人们获得最低工资的提高时，他们可能会更加努力工作，并且更加尽责，这也是支持该政策的一个论点。我认为这并不能弥补失去的工作，但我确实认为有一些积极的影响。如果他们有犯罪记录，他们可能更不容易入狱，比如说。

我想这假设了他们，我不知道答案。我真的在问，是否真的有好处？还是说结果是持平的？因为最低工资上涨了，所以你获得了更高的工资，然后你开始为所有商品支付更多？因为，你最终会得益吗？

哦，稍微有一点，但没有看起来那么多。所以如果你提高最低工资，比如说这会提高食品价格，有很好的证据支持这一点。而其他穷人不得不为他们的食物支付更多。很多那些明显的第一轮收益会被返还并消散。因此，这也是另一个理由，不要对提高最低工资过于热情。你会给40岁以下从未因储蓄而获得奖励的人什么建议？

我不知道。我的意思是，我可以说不要听我的建议吗？我认为那些储蓄良好的人几乎像宗教一样有方法和系统。你知道，我们的女儿，最近一周有一篇关于她和她丈夫以及他们储蓄多少的Marketplace文章。我看到这一点非常自豪。他们的方法是将其视为固定规则，几乎像宗教。我认为这是非常好的建议。我告诉人们通常要靠第一份工作生活。

然后如果你能快乐地靠那份工资生活，那么你可以存下任何其他的钱，你会过上长久的生活。如果你在20多岁时做对了，你就为生活做好了准备。尤其是随着互联网的发展，有这么多退款。你到底需要花那么多钱做什么呢？是的。

而且，你知道，我现在的生活阶段，我有相当高的收入，但我不买好车。我的车是一堆废物，你知道，没关系。它能开，能把我送到那里。它不会坏掉。你认为未来资金会流向哪里以获取回报？会是我们以前的那些类别吗，即固定收益、股票，也许还有房地产？还是你认为这会改变到其他地方？

我认为私募股权已经是未来的浪潮，实际上是现在。他们接管公司并改善管理方式。改善管理有很多低垂的果实。现在，普通投资者无法轻易进入私募股权。房地产，但在某些特定地区，很多人已经负担不起。因此，我认为这是一个大问题。你如何储蓄？你把财富放在哪里？这也是为什么对比特币有如此多兴趣的原因，我对此并不推荐。

但这表明很多人没有太多其他好的选择。你拥有比特币吗？不，我没有。显然，这是我犯的许多错误之一，就像所有那些错误的棋步一样。好吧，你有没有研究过比特币？你对一种非政府监管的货币的想法有什么看法？

好吧，我不认为这是一个泡沫。我认为它有一些有用的功能。我不把它视为货币。花费不方便。它是一种价值储存，有点像黄金或也许是一件精美的艺术品，作为投资组合的一部分，是对风险的保护。我认为这是一种完全合法的资产，将会持续。

并且具有高价值。我不确定它的价值在这一点上是否会上涨，但它是真实的，并且不是泡沫。- 你是否将其与区块链区分开？你对区块链了解多少？我不知道。你预见到区块链的哪些影响？- 区块链是一种组织信息的方式，你可以在不需要老板的情况下验证和确认事物。

我认为我们还没有找到区块链的杀手级应用，除了比特币。我们已经有区块链10年了。我们能否用它来注册财产权？也许。但我们现有的其他方法似乎并不那么糟糕，至少如果你的政府质量足够好。因此，我会说，区块链实际上在这一点上比比特币更具改进性。如果我...

如果我理解正确的话，交易成本似乎很高，涉及验证工作的能源成本。正确，但即使是人们理解系统的成本。因此，任何机构你都必须问，是否人们需要理解这个才能使用它？有时答案是肯定的。有时答案是否定的。

但我认为对于区块链，至少有一些关键的群体必须理解它。而这种理解是很难获得的。律师除非专门研究，否则无法轻易理解区块链。我认识的大多数经济学家也不理解区块链。因此，我认为在它成为某种经过验证的创新之前，还有很多障碍。嘿，大家，我是香农。在我们结束之前，还有几件事。

你可以在 farnamstreetblog.com slash podcast 找到节目笔记。那是 F-A-R-N-A-M-S-T-R-E-E-T-B-L-O-G dot com slash podcast。你也可以在那里找到如何获取文字记录的信息。

如果你想每周收到我发送的充满各种脑力食物的电子邮件，请访问 farnhamstreetblog.com slash newsletter。这是我在那一周在网上找到的所有好东西，我阅读并与亲密朋友分享的书籍，还有更多。感谢你的收听。